• AI and Gen Z: A Perfect Match for Innovation
    www.informationweek.com
    Leigh Gordon, Associate Vice President, Human Resources, HCLSoftwareDecember 4, 20244 Min ReadJosie Elias via Alamy StockGeneration Z is the driving force fundamentally redefining the world and our business landscape. Growing up amid a digitally defined, network-oriented environment that moves at unprecedented scale, scope, and speed -- Gen Zers, also called Zoomer or iGen-ers -- are the first generation shaped by digital technology.Born a few years after the World Wide Web debuted in 1993, this post-millennial digital native generation has grown up with the internet. As they seamlessly blend online and real worlds, Gen Zers, an integral part of business today, are heralding the shift from the digital age to the virtual age.While previous generations invented most of the technology Gen Zers have at their fingertips, their inherent AI fluency helps them radically redefine the future of work, play, and social life. Every facet of their life has been profoundly shaped by AI tools and solutions, leading to new methods of working and connecting with others. The speed and scale afforded by new technologies like GenAI is also reflected in the new attitudes to how they get work done. Unsurprisingly, GenAI tools are the preferred sidekick for tech-savvy Zoomers, with more than 50% using it at work to free up their time for strategic work.As we welcome the next wave of innovation and the youngest cohort of workers, its essential for Gen Z to channel the following skills to thrive in the AI-driven era:Related:Creativity: AI can process vast amounts of data and identify patterns, but it lacks the spark of human creativity. Thinking outside the box, generating novel ideas, and envisioning the future will be indispensable.Imagination: Imagination is the fuel that drives innovation. It allows for new possibilities, challenges the status quo, and develops solutions to complex problems.Problem-solving: While AI can assist in identifying problems and analyzing data, it is humans who possess the critical thinking skills, empathy, and judgment necessary to devise effective solutions.But as we guide Gen Z toward harnessing the power of AI, businesses should proactively adapt to the needs of Gen Z, recognizing their value as a tech-savvy generation that is shaping the future of work.Redefining the Workplace for ZoomersAccording to the World Economic Forum Gen Z will make up about 27% of the workforce by 2027 and 29% by 2030. By recognizing the unique skill set of Gen Zers, organizations can capitalize on their potential to create a more adaptable, innovative, and human-centric workplace.To build a collaborative ecosystem for the future workplace, organizations must consider the following:Related:Invest in continuous learning: The rapid AI development and proliferation of tools has also created unrealistic expectations about capability and proficiency, highlighting the importance of better training, continuous learning and more importantly governance of tools. Its important for organizations to foster a culture of lifelong learning to keep employees adaptable to evolving technologies and to offer training programs for effective governance to avoid misuse of tools and create a knowledge-sharing environment.Use AI as co-pilot in the workplace: Gen Z brings a new perspective, and they do not view AI as a threat or competitor but a valuable collaborator. They are accustomed to using AI assistants for data analysis, modifying product design, and gaining insights to enhance their work. This paradigm shift demands a focus on developing skills that complement AI, like creativity, critical thinking, and the ability to transform AI-generated data into practical strategies.Adopt tools that reflect the needs of digital age humans: Gen Z workers have more AI fluency than their more senior colleagues as evidenced by this recent study, which underscores the need to do away with outdated, legacy tools and platforms to promote real change. Now, organizations must adopt better systems and software that match the needs of this younger workforce wave.Related:Invest in digital tools and infrastructure to foster collaboration: Growing up in a hyper-connected world, this generation thrives both in the digital and physical realm. In an era of hybrid work, organizations must strive to provide phygital (physical + digital) environments to foster connections, spur productivity and boost culture. This also helps promote a sense of belonging.Future Is Bright for Gen Z and AIAs we navigate the rapidly evolving future of work, its clear that Gen Z is at the forefront of innovation. Their digital fluency, combined with their creativity, imagination, and problem-solving skills, positions them as invaluable assets in the AI-driven era.By fostering a workplace that supports continuous learning, innovation, and collaboration, organizations can harness the full potential of Gen Z and create a more adaptable, innovative, and human-centric future, centered on a partnership -- not a tradeoff -- between humans and AI. If organizations understand and embrace this dynamic, theyll be poised to create a world where technology augments human capabilities, with Gen Z at the helm of this transformation, defining the future of work for generations to come.About the AuthorLeigh GordonAssociate Vice President, Human Resources, HCLSoftwareLeigh Gordon leads the people function and is responsible for all aspects of people strategy and operations on a global scale including global recruiting, talent management, talent development, diversity and inclusion, total rewards, organizational effectiveness, and program management. Leigh and her team engage and empower 8000+ global employees to achieve their true potential and drive business value for our customers and partners. She focuses on making HCL Software an exceptional place for employees to work and build a culture that promotes diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging.Leigh has over 20+ years' experience working in global technology organizations, leading teams in Human resources and Sales operations. Prior to joining the company, she was the Global HR Leader and business partner for Customer Experience Solutions at Infor. Leigh earned her bachelors degree in business from West Chester University and her masters degree in human resource development from Villanova University. She is a member of CHIEF and holds her Professional Human Resources (PHR) certification from HRCI.See more from Leigh GordonNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also LikeReportsMore Reports
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·123 Views
  • These are most mind-melting physics discoveries of 2024
    www.newscientist.com
    The universe is even weirder than youd expectandrey_l/ShutterstockThe following is an extract from our Lost in Space-Time newsletter. Each month, we hand over the keyboard to a physicist or mathematician to tell you about fascinating ideas from their corner of the universe. You can sign up for Lost in Space-Time here.Does your workday ever include picking fights about whether empty space is actually empty or whether time is an illusion? Has a co-worker ever told you that youve caused them emotional pain by discussing concepts from quantum field theory? Welcome to the life of a
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·99 Views
  • Why did humans evolve big brains? A new idea bodes ill for our future
    www.newscientist.com
    HumansRecent fossil finds suggest that big brains weren't an evolutionary asset to our ancestors but evolved by accident and are likely to shrink again in the near future 8 July 2024 adobe stock/Phoebe WattsNobody doubts that Albert Einstein had a brilliant mind. But the Nobel prizewinner, famous for his theories of special and general relativity, wasnt blessed with a big brain. It was smaller than average, says Jeremy DeSilva at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.This seems surprising. Big brains are a defining feature of human anatomy, and one we are proud of. Other species might be speedy or powerful, but we thrive using the ingenuity that comes with a large brain. Or so we tell ourselves. Einsteins brain hints that the story isnt so simple and recent fossil discoveries confirm this. Over the past two decades, we have learned that small-brained hominin species survived on Earth long after big-brained ones appeared. Moreover, evidence is growing that they were behaviourally sophisticated. Some, for instance, made complex stone tools that could probably only have been fashioned by individuals with language.These discoveries turn the question of human brain evolution on its head. Why would selection favour big brains when small-brained humans can survive on the landscape? says DeSilva. Neural tissue consumes lots of energy, so big brains must surely have brought benefits to the few species that evolved them. But what?An answer to this puzzle is beginning to emerge. It looks like brain expansion began as an evolutionary accident and then led to changes that caused this growth to spiral. Surprisingly, the sorts of changes that drove this expansion could also explain a more recent 10 per cent reduction in human brain size. Whats more, this suggests our brains may shrink further still and might even cause humanitys demise.It is undeniable that
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·97 Views
  • How the Ukraine-Russia war is reshaping the tech sector in Eastern Europe
    www.technologyreview.com
    At first glance, the Mosphera scooter may look normaljust comically oversized. Its like the monster truck of scooters, with a footplate seven inches off the ground thats wide enough to stand on with your feet slightly apartwhich you have to do to keep your balance, because when you flip the accelerator with a thumb, it takes off like a rocket. While the version I tried in a parking lot in Rigas warehouse district had a limiter on the motor, the production version of the supersized electric scooter can hit 100 kilometers (62 miles) per hour on the flat. The all-terrain vehicle can also go 300 kilometers on a single charge and climb 45-degree inclines. Latvian startup Global Wolf Motors launched in 2020 with a hope that the Mosphera would fill a niche in micromobility. Like commuters who use scooters in urban environments, farmers and vintners could use the Mosphera to zip around their properties; miners and utility workers could use it for maintenance and security patrols; police and border guards could drive them on forest paths. And, they thought, maybe the military might want a few to traverse its bases or even the battlefieldthough they knew that was something of a long shot. When co-founders Henrijs Bukavs and Klavs Asmanis first went to talk to Latvias armed forces, they were indeed met with skepticisma military scooter, officials implied, didnt make much senseand a wall of bureaucracy. They found that no matter how good your pitch or how glossy your promo video (and Global Wolfs promo is glossy: a slick montage of scooters jumping, climbing, and speeding in formation through woodlands and deserts), getting into military supply chains meant navigating layer upon layer of officialdom. Then Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, and everything changed. In the desperate early days of the war, Ukrainian combat units wanted any equipment they could get their hands on, and they were willing to try out ideaslike a military scooterthat might not have made the cut in peacetime. Asmanis knew a Latvian journalist heading to Ukraine; through the reporters contacts, the startup arranged to ship two Mospheras to the Ukrainian army. Within weeks, the scooters were at the front lineand even behind it, being used by Ukrainian special forces scouts on daring reconnaissance missions. It was an unexpected but momentous step for Global Wolf, and an early indicator of a new demand thats sweeping across tech companies along Ukraines borders: for civilian products that can be adapted quickly for military use. COURTESY OF GLOBAL WOLF Global Wolfs high-definition marketing materials turned out to be nowhere near as effective as a few minutes of grainy phone footage from the war. The company has since shipped out nine more scooters to the Ukrainian army, which has asked for another 68. Where Latvian officials once scoffed, the countrys prime minister went to see Mospheras factory in April 2024, and now dignitaries and defense officials from the country are regular visitors. It might have been hard a few years ago to imagine soldiers heading to battle on oversized toys made by a tech startup with no military heritage. But Ukraines resistance to Russias attacks has been a miracle of social resilience and innovationand the way the country has mobilized is serving both a warning and an inspiration to its neighbors. Theyve watched as startups, major industrial players, and political leaders in Ukraine have worked en masse to turn civilian technology into weapons and civil defense systems. Theyve seen Ukrainian entrepreneurs help bootstrap a military-industrial complex that is retrofitting civilian drones into artillery spotters and bombers, while software engineers become cyberwarriors and AI companies shift to battlefield intelligence. Engineers work directly with friends and family on the front line, iterating their products with incredible speed. Their successesoften at a fraction of the cost of conventional weapons systemshave in turn awakened European governments and militaries to the potential of startup-style innovation and startups to the potential dual uses of their products, meaning ones that have legitimate civilian applications but can be modified at scale to turn them into weapons. This heady mix of market demand and existential threat is pulling tech companies in Latvia and the other Baltic states into a significant pivot. Companies that can find military uses for their products are hardening them and discovering ways to get them in front of militaries that are increasingly willing to entertain the idea of working with startups. Its a turn that may only become more urgent if the US under incoming President Donald Trump becomes less willing to underwrite the continents defense. But while national governments, the European Union, and NATO are all throwing billions of dollars of public money into incubators and investment fundsfollowed closely by private-sector investorssome entrepreneurs and policy experts who have worked closely with Ukraine warn that Europe might have only partially learned the lessons from Ukraines resistance. If Europe wants to be ready to meet the threat of attack, it needs to find new ways of working with the tech sector. That includes learning how Ukraines government and civil society adapted to turn civilian products into dual-use tools quickly and cut through bureaucracy to get innovative solutions to the front. Ukraines resilience shows that military technology isnt just about what militaries buy but about how they buy it, and about how politics, civil society, and the tech sector can work together in a crisis. [Ukraine], unfortunately, is the best defense technology experimentation ground in the world right now. If you are not in Ukraine, then you are not in the defense business. I think that a lot of tech companies in Europe would do what is needed to do. They would put their knowledge and skills where theyre needed, says Ieva Ilves, a veteran Latvian diplomat and technology policy expert. But many governments across the continent are still too slow, too bureaucratic, and too worried that they might appear to be wasting money, meaning, she says, that they are not necessarily preparing the soil for if [a] crisis comes. The question is, she says, on a political level, are we capable of learning from Ukraine? Waking up the neighbors Many Latvians and others across the Baltic nations feel the threat of Russian aggression more viscerally than their neighbors in Western Europe. Like Ukraine, Latvia has a long border with Russia and Belarus, a large Russian-speaking minority, and a history of occupation. Also like Ukraine, it has been the target of more than a decade of so-called hybrid war tacticscyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other attempts at destabilizationdirected by Moscow. Since Russian tanks crossed into Ukraine two-plus years ago, Latvia has stepped up its preparations for a physical confrontation, investing more than 300 million ($316 million) in fortifications along the Russian border and reinstating a limited form of conscription to boost its reserve forces. Since the start of this year, the Latvian fire service has been inspecting underground structures around the country, looking for cellars, parking garages, and metro stations that could be turned into bomb shelters. And much like Ukraine, What it and other smaller European countries can produce for themselvesand potentially sell to their alliesare small-scale weapons systems, software platforms, telecoms equipment, and specialized vehicles. The country is now making a significant investment in tools like Exonicus, a medical technology platform founded 11 years ago by Latvian sculptor Sandis Kondrats. Users of its augmented-reality battlefield-medicine training simulator put on a virtual reality headset that presents them with casualties, which they have to diagnose and figure out how to treat. The all-digital training saves money on mannequins, Kondrats says, and on critical field resources. If you use all the medical supplies on training, then you dont have any medical supplies, he says. Exonicus has recently broken into the military supply chain, striking deals with the Latvian, Estonian, US, and German militaries, and it has been training Ukrainian combat medics. Medical technology company Exonicus has created an augmented-reality battlefield-medicine training simulator that presents users with casualties, which they have to diagnose and figure out how to treat.GATIS ORLICKIS/BALTIC PICTURES Theres also VR Cars, a company founded by two Latvian former rally drivers, that signed a contract in 2022 to develop off-road vehicles for the army's special forces. And there is Entangle, a quantum encryption company that sells widgets that turn mobile phones into secure communications devices, and has recently received an innovation grant from the Latvian Ministry of Defense. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the focus in Latvia has been on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, which have become ubiquitous on both sides fighting in Ukraine, often outperforming weapons systems that cost an order of magnitude more. In the early days of the war, Ukraine found itself largely relying on machines bought from abroad, such as the Turkish-made Bayraktar strike aircraft and jury-rigged DJI quadcopters from China. It took a while, but within a year the country was able to produce home-grown systems. As a result, a lot of the emphasis in defense programs across Europe is on UAVs that can be built in-country. The biggest thing when you talk to [European ministries of defense] now is that they say, We want a big amount of drones, but we also want our own domestic production, says Ivan Tolchinsky, CEO of Atlas Dynamics, a drone company headquartered in Riga. Atlas Dynamics builds drones for industrial uses and has now made hardened versions of its surveillance UAVs that can resist electronic warfare and operate in battlefield conditions. Agris Kipurs founded AirDog in 2014 to make drones that could track a subject autonomously; they were designed for people doing outdoor sports who wanted to film themselves without needing to fiddle with a controller. He and his co-founders sold the company to a US home security company, Alarm.com, in 2020. For a while, we did not know exactly what we would build next, Kipurs says. But then, with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it became rather obvious. His new company, Origin Robotics, has recently come out of stealth mode, he says, after two years of research and development. Origin has built on the teams experience in consumer drones and its expertise in autonomous flight to begin to build what Kipurs calls an airborne precision-guided weapon systema guided bomb that a soldier can carry in a backpack. The Latvian government has invested in encouraging startups like these, as well as small manufacturers, to develop military-capable UAVs by establishing a 600,000 prize fund for domestic drone startups and a 10 million budget to create a new drone program, working with local and international manufacturers. VR Cars was founded by two Latvian former rally drivers and has developed off-road vehicles for the army's special forces. Latvia is also the architect and co-leader, with the UK, of the Drone Coalition, a multicountry initiative thats directing more than 500 million toward building a drone supply chain in the West. Under the initiative, militaries run competitions for drone makers, rewarding high performers with contracts and sending their products to Ukraine. Its grantees are often not allowed to publicize their contracts, for security reasons. But the companies which are delivering products through that initiative are new to the market, Kipurs says. They are not the companies that were there five years ago. Even national telecommunications company LMT, which is partly government owned, is working on drones and other military-grade hardware, including sensor equipment and surveillance balloons. Its developing a battlefield internet of things systemessentially, a system that can track in real time all the assets and personnel in a theater of war. In Latvia, more or less, we are getting ready for war, says former naval officer Kaspars Pollaks, who heads an LMT division that focuses on defense innovation. We are just taking the threat really seriously. Because we will be operationally alone [if Russia invades]. The Latvian governments investments are being mirrored across Europe: NATO has expanded its Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) program, which runs startup incubators for dual-use technologies across the continent and the US, and launched a separate 1 billion startup fund in 2022. Adding to this, the European Investment Fund, a publicly owned investment company, launched a 175 million fund-of-funds this year to support defense technologies with dual-use potential. And the European Commission has earmarked more than 7 billion for defense research and development between now and 2027. Private investors are also circling, looking for opportunities to profit from the boom. Figures from the European consultancy Dealroom show that fundraising by dual-use and military-tech companies on the continent was just shy of $1 billion in 2023up nearly a third over 2022, despite an overall slowdown in venture capital activity. Atlas Dynamics builds drones for industrial uses and now makes hardened versions that can resist electronic warfare and operate in battlefield conditions.ATLAS AERO When Atlas Dynamics started in 2015, funding was hard to come by, Tolchinsky says: Its always hard to make it as a hardware company, because VCs are more interested in software. And if you start talking about the defense market, people say, Okay, its a long play for 10 or 20 years, its not interesting. Thats changed since 2022. Now, what we see because of this war is more and more venture capital that wants to invest in defense companies, Tolchinsky says. But while money is helping startups get off the ground, to really prove the value of their products they need to get their tools in the hands of people who are going to use them. When I asked Kipurs if his products are currently being used in Ukraine, he only said: Im not allowed to answer that question directly. But our systems are with end users. Battle tested Ukraine has moved on from the early days of the conflict, when it was willing to take almost anything that could be thrown at the invaders. But that experience has been critical in pushing the government to streamline its procurement processes dramatically to allow its soldiers to try out new defense-tech innovations. ORIGIN ROBOTICS ORIGIN ROBOTICS Origin Robotics has built on a history of producing consumer drones to create a guided bomb that a soldier can carry in a backpack. This system has, at times, been chaotic and fraught with risk. Fake crowdfunding campaigns have been set up to scam donors and steal money. Hackers have used open-source drone manuals and fake procurement contracts in phishing attacks in Ukraine. Some products have simply not worked as well at the front as their designers hoped, with reports of US-made drones falling victim to Russian jammingor even failing to take off at all. Technology that doesnt work at the front puts soldiers at risk, so in many cases they have taken matters into their own hands. Two Ukrainian drone makers tell me that military procurement in the country has been effectively flipped on its head: If you want to sell your gear to the armed forces, you dont go to the general staffyou go directly to the soldiers and put it in their hands. Once soldiers start asking their senior officers for your tool, you can go back to the bureaucrats and make a deal. Many foreign companies have simply donated their products to Ukrainepartly out of a desire to help, and partly because theyve identified a (potentially profitable) opportunity to expose them to the shortened innovation cycles of conflict and to get live feedback from those fighting. This can be surprisingly easy as some volunteer units handle their own parallel supply chains through crowdfunding and donations, and they are eager to try out new tools if someone is willing to give them freely. One logistics specialist supplying a front line unit, speaking anonymously as hes not authorized to talk to the media, tells me that this spring, they turned to donated gear from startups in Europe and the US to fill gaps left by delayed US military aid, including untested prototypes of UAVs and communications equipment. All of this has allowed many companies to bypass the traditionally slow process of testing and demonstrating their products, for better and worse. Tech companies rush into the conflict zone has unnerved some observers, who are worried that by going to war, companies have sidestepped ethical and safety concerns over their tools. Clearview AI gave Ukraine access to its controversial facial recognition tools to help identify Russias war dead, for example, sparking moral and practical questions over accuracy, privacy, and human rightspublishing images of those killed in war is arguably a violation of the Geneva Convention. Some high-profile tech executives, including Palantir CEO Alex Karp and former Google CEO-turned-military-tech-investor Eric Schmidt, have used the conflict to try to shift the global norms for using artificial intelligence in war, building systems that let machines select targets for attackswhich some experts worry is a gateway into autonomous killer robots. LMTs Pollaks says he has visited Ukraine often since the war began. Though he declines to give more details, he euphemistically describes Ukraines wartime bureaucracy as nonstandardized. If you want to blow something up in front of an audience in the EU, he says, you have to go through a whole lot of approvals, and the paperwork can take months, even years. In Ukraine, plenty of people are willing to try out your tools. [Ukraine], unfortunately, is the best defense technology experimentation ground in the world right now, Pollaks says. If you are not in Ukraine, then you are not in the defense business. Jack Wang, principal at UK-based venture capital fund Project A, which invests in military-tech startups, agrees that the Ukraine track can be incredibly fruitful. If you sell to Ukraine, you get faster product and tech iteration, and live field testing, he says. The dollars might vary. Sometimes zero, sometimes quite a bit. But you get your product in the field faster. The feedback that comes from the front is invaluable. Atlas Dynamics has opened an office in Ukraine, and its representatives there work with soldiers and special forces to refine and modify their products. When Russian forces started jamming a wide band of radio frequencies to disrupt communication with the drones, Atlas designed a smart frequency-hopping system, which scans for unjammed frequencies and switches control of the drone over to them, putting soldiers a step ahead of the enemy. At Global Wolf, battlefield testing for the Mosphera has led to small but significant iterations of the product, which have come naturally as soldiers use it. One scooter-related problem on the front turned out to be resupplying soldiers in entrenched positions with ammunition. Just as urban scooters have become last-mile delivery solutions in cities, troops found that the Mosphera was well suited to shuttling small quantities of ammo at high speeds across rough ground or through forests. To make this job easier, Global Wolf tweaked the design of the vehicles optional extra trailer so that it perfectly fits eight NATO standard-sized bullet boxes. Within weeks of Russia's full-scale invasion, Mosphera scooters were at Ukraine's front lineand even behind it, being used by Ukrainian special forces scouts.GLOBAL WOLF Some snipers prefer the electric Mosphera to noisy motorbikes or quads, using the vehicles to weave between trees to get into position. But they also like to shoot from the saddlesomething they couldnt do from the scooters footplate. So Global Wolf designed a stable seat that lets shooters fire without having to dismount. Some units wanted infrared lights, and the company has made those, too. These types of requests give the team ideas for new upgrades: Its like buying a car, Asmanis says. You can have it with air conditioning, without air conditioning, with heated seats. Being battle-tested is already proving to be a powerful marketing tool. Bukavs told me he thinks defense ministers are getting closer to moving from promises toward action. The Latvian police have bought a handful of Mospheras, and the countrys military has acquired some, too, for special forces units. (We dont have any information on how theyre using them, Asmanis says. Its better we dont ask, Bukavs interjects.) Military distributors from several other countries have also approached them to market their units locally. Although they say their donations were motivated first and foremost by a desire to help Ukraine resist the Russian invasion, Bukavs and Asmanis admit that they have been paid back for their philanthropy many times over. Of course, all this could change soon, and the Ukraine track could very well be disrupted when Trump returns to office in January. The US has provided more than $64 billion worth of military aid to Ukraine since the start of the full-scale invasion. A significant amount of that has been spent in Europe, in what Wang calls a kind of drop-shippingUkraine asks for drones, for instance, and the US buys them from a company in Europe, which ships them directly to the war effort. Wang showed me a recent pitch deck from one European military-tech startup. In assessing the potential budgets available for its products, it compares the Ukrainian budget, which was in the tens of millions of dollars, and the donated from everybody else budget, which was a billion dollars. A large amount of that everybody else money comes from the US. If, as many analysts expect, the Trump administration dramatically reduces or entirely stops US military aid to Ukraine, these young companies focused on military tech and dual-use tech will likely take a hit. Ideally, the European side will step up their spending on European companies, but there will be a short-term gap, Wang says. A lasting change? Russias full-scale invasion exposed how significantly the military-industrial complex in Europe has withered since the Cold War. Across the continent, governments have cut back investments in hardware like ships, tanks, and shells, partly because of a belief that wars would be fought on smaller scales, and partly to trim their national budgets. After decades of Europe reducing its combat capability, Pollaks says, now we are in the situation we are in. [It] will be a real challenge to ramp it up. And the way to do that, at least from our point of view, is real close integration between industry and the armed forces. This would hardly be controversial in the US, where the military and the defense industry often work closely together to develop new systems. But in Europe, this kind of collaboration would be a bit wild, Pollaks says. Militaries tend to be more closed off, working mainly with large defense contractors, and European investors have tended to be more squeamish about backing companies whose products could end up going to war. As a result, despite the many positive signs for the developers of military tech, progress in overhauling the broader supply chain has been slower than many people in the sector would like. Several founders of dual-use and military-tech companies in Latvia and the other Baltic states tell me they are often invited to events where they pitch to enthusiastic audiences of policymakers, but they never see any major orders afterward. I dont think any amount of VC blogging or podcasting will change how the military actually procures technology, says Project As Wang. Despite whats happening next door, Ukraines neighbors are still ultimately operating in peacetime. Government budgets remain tight, and even if the bureaucracy has become more flexible, layers upon layers of red tape remain. Soldiers of the Latvian National Defense Service learn field combat skills in a training exercise.GATIS INDRVICS/ LATVIAN MINISTRY OF DEFENSE Even Global Wolfs Bukavs laments that a caravan of political figures has visited their factory but has not rewarded the company with big contracts. Despite Ukraines requests for the Mosphera scooters, for instance, they ultimately werent included in Latvias 2024 package of military aid due to budgetary constraints. What this suggests is that European governments have learned a partial lesson from Ukrainethat startups can give you an edge in conflict. But experts worry that the continents politics means it may still struggle to innovate at speed. Many Western European countries have built up substantial bureaucracies to protect their democracies from corruption or external influences. Authoritarian states arent so hamstrung, and they, too, have been watching the war in Ukraine closely. Russian forces are reportedly testing Chinese and Iranian drones at the front line. Even North Korea has its own drone program. The solution isnt necessarily to throw out the mechanisms for accountability that are part of democratic society. But the systems that have been built up for good governance have led to fragility, sometimes leading governments to worry more about the politics of procurement than preparing for crises, according to Ilves and other policy experts I spoke to. Procurement problems grow bigger and bigger when democratic societies lose trust in leadership, says Ilves, who now advises Ukraines Ministry of Digital Transformation on cybersecurity policy and international cooperation. If a Twitter [troll] starts to go after a defense procurement budget, he can start to shape policy. That makes it hard to give financial support to a tech company whose products you dont need now, for example, but whose capabilities might be useful to have in an emergencya kind of merchant marine for technology, on constant reserve in case its needed. We cant push European tech to keep innovating imaginative crisis solutions, Ilves says. Business is business. It works for money, not for ideas. Even in Riga the war can feel remote, despite the Ukrainian flags flying from windows and above government buildings. Conversations about ordnance delivery and electronic warfare held in airy warehouse conversions can feel academic, even faintly absurd. In one incubator hub I visited in April, a company building a heavy-duty tracked ATV worked next door to an accounting software startup. On the top floor, bean bag chairs were laid out and a karaoke machine had been set up for a party that evening. A sense of crisis is needed to jolt politicians, companies, and societies into understanding that the front line can come to them, Ilves says: Thats my take on why I think the Baltics are ahead. Unfortunately not because we are so smart, but because we have this sense of necessity. Nevertheless, she says her experience over the past few years suggests theres cause for hope if, or when, danger breaks through a countrys borders. Before the full-scale invasion, Ukraines government wasnt exactly popular among the domestic business and tech communities. And yet, they came together and put their brains and resources behind [the war effort], she says. I have a feeling that our societies are sometimes better than we think. Peter Guestis a journalist based in London.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·106 Views
  • Nominate someone to our 2025 list of Innovators Under 35
    www.technologyreview.com
    Every year, MIT Technology Review recognizes 35 young innovators who are doing pioneering work across a range of technical fields including biotechnology, materials science, artificial intelligence, computing, and more. Were now taking nominations for our 2025 list and you can submit one here. The process takes just a few minutes. Nominations will close at 11:59 PM ET on January 20, 2025. You can nominate yourself or someone you know, based anywhere in the world. The only rule is that the nominee must be under the age of 35 on October 1, 2025. We want to hear about people who have made outstanding contributions to their fields and are making an early impact in their careers. Perhaps theyve led an important scientific advance, founded a company thats addressing an urgent problem, or discovered a new way to deploy an existing technology that improves peoples lives. If you want to nominate someone, you should identify a clear advance or innovation for which they are primarily responsible. We seek to highlight innovators whose breakthroughs are broad in scope and whose influence reaches beyond their immediate scientific communities. The 2025 class of innovators will join a long list of distinguished honorees. We featured Lisu Su, now CEO of AMD, when she was 32 years old; Andrew Ng, a computer scientist and serial entrepreneur, made the list in 2008 when he was an assistant professor at Stanford. That same year, we featured 31-year-old Jack Dorseytwo years after he launched Twitter. And Helen Greiner, co-founder of iRobot, was on the list in 1999. Know someone who should be on our 2025 list? Wed love to hear about them. Submit your nomination today or visit our FAQ to learn more.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·95 Views
  • Armie Hammer made his first acting appearance in 2 years in a role called 'Kannibal Ken'
    www.businessinsider.com
    Armie Hammer's cameo in a new music video this week marks his first acting appearance since 2022.In 2021, the actor was accused of sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and having cannibalistic fantasies.In the music video released Monday, Hammer plays a character called "Kannibal Ken."Armie Hammer played a character called "Kannibal Ken" in a new music video released on Monday. The cameo comes three years after his career was tanked due to allegations of sexual assault and cannibalistic fantasies.The cameo seems to be Hammer's latest move in his career comeback, following the launch of a podcast in October.The music video featuring Hammer is for the song "Typical Squeeze" by Georgie Leahy, a British actor and singer. It's Hammer's first acting role since 2022's "Death of the Nile," filmed in 2019.While Leahy and Hammer don't seem to have an obvious relationship, the music video director, Jerry Brunskill, is a friend of Hammer's and the producer of his podcast. The video was also shot in Ramsey Art Gallery, owned by another friend of Hammer's and guest on the podcast, Tyler Ramsey.In the video, Hammer jumps out of the trunk of a car that Leahy is driving, causing her to scream and flip the car over. As the car flips, severed limbs fall out of the vehicle.The scene and Hammer's character name, as it appears in the video's official Youtube credits, seem to be referencing the allegations made against Hammer in 2021.In 2021, Hammer faced backlash after a woman accused him of sexual assault, and two others alleged emotional abuse and sexual coercion involving cannibalistic and BDSM fetishes.In March 2021, The Los Angeles Police Department opened an investigation into the sexual assault.Following the allegations, Hammer was dropped by his talent agency and publicist. He also left two movie projects and a TV series.Hammer told Air Mail in 2023 that he was emotionally abusive to his accusers but has denied the other allegations. In 2023, the LAPD closed their investigation saying that there was insufficient evidence to charge Hammer.After three years of laying low, Hammer is trying to re-enter the entertainment industry. Armie Hammer in 2019. Jeff Kravitz/Getty Images In June, Hammer said on the "Painful Lessons" podcast that he had written a script with a friend, which he hopes to turn into his next project.Hammer also launched his own podcast in October, "The Armie HammerTime Podcast" as "a chronicling of putting my life back together." In the first episode, he told listeners he "kind of likes" the cannibalism rumors because it makes "more noise."Two days later, Deadline reported Hammer had been cast in a film, "Frontier Crucible."Lauren Beeching, a crisis management expert based in London, told Business Insider in October that Hammer's comeback tour won't work unless he shows his audience that he has changed."Without addressing the serious allegations, it's probably going to appear more like a distraction than a genuine comeback," Beeching said. "Listeners will need to believe that he's learned and changed for them to fully invest in this journey."
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·115 Views
  • An Apple employee is suing, saying the company monitors personal devices and stops staff from talking about pay
    www.businessinsider.com
    A lawsuit says Apple invades the privacy of employees by monitoring personal devices.The lawsuit also claims Apple's policies suppress employee rights and whistleblowing.The suit was filed by an Apple worker who says it barred him from publicly discussing his work.A lawsuit says Apple illegally limits the freedom of employees by monitoring personal devices andiCloud accountsand prohibiting them from talking about their pay and working conditions.The complaint was filed on Monday in the California Superior Court in Santa Clara County by Amar Bhakta. The suit says Bhakta has worked for Apple in digital advertising tech and operations since 2020."Apple's surveillance policies and practices chill, and thus also unlawfully restrain, employee whistleblowing, competition, freedom of employee movement in the job market, and freedom of speech," the suit says.It also claims the smartphone maker "actively discourages" using iCloud accounts only for work."If you use your personal account on an Apple-managed or Apple-owned iPhone, iPad or computer, any data stored on the device (including emails, photos, video, notes and more), are subject to search by Apple," the lawsuit quotes Apple company policy as saying.The lawsuit says that Bhakta was barred from discussing his work in podcasts and was asked to delete information about his working conditions from his LinkedIn profile.Bhakta filed the suit under the Private Attorneys General Act, which authorizes workers to sue on behalf of the State of California for labor violations.He is being represented by Outten & Golden and Baker, Dolinko & Schwartz.Outten & Golden is also representing two women suing Apple in a suit saying the company paid more than 12,000 female workers in California less than male colleagues with similar roles."All California employees have the right to speak about their wages and working conditions," Jahan Sagafi, a partner at Outten & Golden, said in a press release about Bhakta's case."Apple's broad speech suppression policies create a danger of discrimination going unchallenged far too long, which harms all Apple employees and Californians in general," he added.Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·117 Views
  • I listened to hours of Trumps FBI pick on Steve Bannons podcast. Oh boy.
    www.vox.com
    Kash Patel, Donald Trumps pick to direct the Federal Bureau of Intelligence, has never served in the FBI. But he has hosted Steve Bannons podcast.Patel is a contributor at Real Americas Voice, the right-wing news network that produces Bannons show War Room, and has long appeared as a guest on the show. After top Trump adviser Bannon was imprisoned for four months earlier this year on charges of contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a January 6 Committee subpoena Patel stepped up to serve as an occasional guest host.To try and understand Patel better, I listened to every episode and clip tagged with Kash Patel on the War Room website and a few others that Bannons team missed. The overwhelming impression is that Patel is a man whose entire worldview revolves around paranoid conspiracy theories specifically, conspiracies against both America and Trump, which for him are one and the same. Its a specific kind of obsession that reminds me of the FBIs first director: J. Edgar Hoover, a man who infamously abused his power to persecute political enemies.During his various appearances on Bannons show, Patel and/or his interviewees declared that:China is funding the Democratic Party and sending military-aged males across the Mexican and Canadian borders to prepare for a preemptive strike.Barack Obama directs a shadow network that is quietly directing the intelligence community and Big Tech to persecute Trump.Attorney General Merrick Garland wants to throw all of us which is to say, Trump allies in prison.And Patel is willing to go to extreme measures in response to these alleged threats.In one episode, he called on the Republican majority in Congress to unilaterally arrest Garland invoking an obscure legal doctrine called inherent contempt that has never been used in this fashion in the entirety of American history. In another, he outlined a plan for a MAGA blitz of American institutions focused on getting loyalists into high office.It is hard to tell whether Patel genuinely believes this stuff or is merely performing for Bannons audience. But its largely immaterial. Because it is this performance that made him a star in Trumpworld: his willingness to ape Trumps own conspiratorial worldview making him into a person Trump wants to be in charge of Americas domestic security services. Once in power, his stated commitment to these beliefs whatever he thinks privately will push him to act in line with them.Patel, in short, is the kind of man who could become Trumps Hoover: a man willing to push federal law enforcement into dangerously anti-democratic territory in pursuit of alleged domestic enemies.The world according to Kash PatelPatel owes his career to Russiagate: the seemingly never-ending fight over whether the 2016 Trump campaign colluded with Russian efforts to interfere in American elections. Patel worked as a staffer for then-Rep. Devin Nunes, the Republican chair of the House subcommittee on intelligence and Trumps chief defender during the controversy. Patel authored the famous 2018 Nunes memo arguing that the FBI application to surveil Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was filled with errors and motivated by political bias.The memo got more right than many observers (including myself) gave it credit for at the time though it did get the bigger picture about FBI bias wrong. Regardless, the incident turned Patel into a Trumpworld star. He ascended to several high-level positions in the first Trump administration relating to defense, national security, and intelligence.These experiences have given Patel a worldview that I think is best defined as paranoid.Patel believes that foreign enemies ranging from China to Iran to drug cartels are doing their best to infiltrate the United States and wreak havoc on its homeland. Only Trump has the strength and the fortitude to stand up against these enemies and defend American allies like Israel.The Democrats, he believes, do not just disagree with Trump on how to handle these threats: They are actively aligned with Americas enemies.In one War Room segment, for example, Patel hosted a discredited China expert named Gordon Chang to warn that China was planning an attack on our facilities on our soil. But its worse than that, Chang argued: China had installed Joe Biden as the president of the United States.They were actually able to cast the decisive vote in 2020, Chang told Patel, claiming without evidence that China poured money into Joe Bidens campaign through the Democratic crowdfunding platform ActBlue. Patels response was not skepticism but credulity: I hope people are paying attention.But Democrats are not merely unwitting cats paws of foreign powers, per Patel: They are nefarious actors aiming to tear down American democracy.One of Patels favorite phrases, one that he uses again and again on Bannons show, is two-tiered system of justice. In his mind, federal law enforcement employs two distinct standards one for the deep states friends and another for its enemies. Its allies, like the Bidens, receive only limited and superficial scrutiny, while its enemies are constantly harassed and persecuted. The four prosecutions of Trump, for Patel, are not legitimate inquiries into wrongdoing and abuses of power, but rather agents of a corrupt system lashing out at the one man who threatens their grip on America.For this reason, Patel has an enemies list literally. His book Government Gangsters, which he is constantly hawking on War Room, contains an appendix listing dozens of names that comprise the executive branch deep state. The list ranges from names of people you know, like Vice President Kamala Harris, to people youve never heard of, like a former State Department diplomat named Elizabeth Dibble.Patels potential power perversionsIf this all reminds you of the most infamous director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover well, it should. The two men share a dangerous tendency to link enemies foreign and domestic, and a willingness to entertain dangerous abuses of law enforcement powers in fighting them.In his book Enemies, journalist Tim Weiner argues that Hoovers worldview was defined by a bone-deep fear of Communist plots against the American homeland up to and including physical attacks from kamikaze airplanes and dirty bombs. Hoover began maintaining a secret list of enemies of the United States inside of government and out, conducting illegal surveillance and other law-bending operations designed to bring them to heel. One example: a plot to convince Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself by threatening to expose the civil rights leaders sexual indiscretions.In theory, this is the kind of abuse of power that Patel is against. He rails constantly against government surveillance and abuses of power against political enemies.Yet at the same time, he is constantly proposing schemes like Congress arresting Garland that amount to efforts to criminalize political disagreements. This includes proposals to investigate prominent Democrats and even prosecute journalists.Yes, were going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections were going to come after you, he said in a guest appearance on War Room last year. Whether its criminally or civilly, well figure that out.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Politics
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·99 Views
  • The pro-housing consensus that wasnt
    www.vox.com
    These days, it seems as though everyone is something of a YIMBY: a Yes in My Backyard activist advocating for more housing and fewer barriers to making that happen.For decades, thanks to restrictive zoning laws and increasing construction costs, we simply havent built enough new housing, wrote Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Tina Smith in the New York Times earlier this fall.Housing is too expensive, and we need to increase the housing supply, Kamala Harris said as she campaigned for president, building off Joe Bidens earlier call to build, build, build to bring housing costs down for good.And Donald Trump has complained about regulations leading to high housing costs, telling Bloomberg, Zoning is like ... its a killer.Yet as three recently published books reveal, this YIMBY-ish agreement across the political spectrum can mask deeper divides, including about property rights, community development, and the very meaning of democracy in housing policy. Escaping the Housing Trap by urbanists Charles Marohn and Daniel Herriges of Strong Towns advocates for a slower-paced, locally driven form of development that they believe will be more sustainable over the long term. On the Housing Crisis by journalist Jerusalem Demsas challenges this kind of incrementalism, arguing the severity of todays housing shortage demands bolder intervention. And in Nowhere to Live, James Burling, a lawyer with the libertarian Pacific Legal Foundation, frames the housing shortage as the result of diminished respect for private property, something he argues will have to be reversed for any real change.Related:Read together, these new books tell us that while it has become mainstream to say that America needs more homes and even to acknowledge that zoning rules and self-interested homeowners play a role in blocking new housing theres not a clear consensus about what kinds of homes we should build, how we should build them, and who should decide where they go. While its tempting to think a pro-housing consensus at least forecasts positive changes, the authors say a close read of history should leave us unconvinced that policymakers will ultimately take the necessary steps for reform. Theres an opportunity, but we should be clear-eyed about the obstacles. Who should chart the future of housing policy?For decades, the federal government largely deferred to state governments on matters of land use. States mostly deferred to local governments, which in turn typically deferred to their home-owning constituents who backed restrictive zoning laws that barred new construction. But with housing now consuming a greater portion of households budgets, even federal lawmakers can no longer avoid addressing the dramatic rise in rents and mortgage payments. Unlike past housing crises that primarily affected the poor, todays challenges reach deep into the middle class.Experts say the US is short somewhere between 3.8 million and 6.8 million homes. As of 2022, households earning the median income could afford only 20 percent of the homes for sale across the country. Most renters feel priced out of homeownership entirely, and the lack of affordable housing is causing homelessness to rise.But as policymakers and voters focus more intently on the housing emergency, thorny questions about democratic participation have emerged. Research increasingly shows that local planning meetings are deeply unrepresentative, with participants skewing older, whiter, more likely to be a homeowner and therefore more likely to support measures that prioritize their property values and the status quo. Even making meetings virtual, which should theoretically increase access, hasnt solved this participation gap. Yet the problem runs deeper than just representation. When polled, voters often express the most enthusiastic support for indirect interventions like government subsidies and rent caps, policies that housing experts say would do little to address affordability and could even make things worse long term. Meanwhile, voters frequently oppose the fundamental solution building more housing even though restricting new development is what perpetuates the shortage. This raises a fundamental question: How much should democratic preferences matter?This is a central concern in Demsass book, and explored to a lesser degree in the two others. In one of her most agitating chapters Community Input Is Bad, Actually Demsas makes the case that democracy works best when the views or needs of people are accurately transmitted to their leaders, leaders take action, and voters can express their approval or disapproval in the next election. Invoking historian Paul Sabin, she argues this form of democratic accountability was upended in the 1960s and 70s by a new emphasis on citizen participation, including new public interest law firms that challenged rules and laws while expanding judicial influence over policy. The Pacific Legal Foundation emerged from this 1970s institutional ferment. While Burling, a staunch defender of property rights, shares Demsass concerns about regulatory barriers to new housing, his book makes a passionate case for litigation as a crucial check on government power, particularly through a compelling chapter on how litigation has buffered eminent domain abuse. Without it, he writes, entire neighborhoods of undesirables the poor, the ethnic minorities, and those least able to mount meaningful political resistance can be condemned in order to revitalize their neighborhoods. Public interest litigation and community input rules emerged to protect neighborhoods from destructive top-down planning like the urban renewal that devastated Black neighborhoods in the 1960s. But this democratic vision has evolved into a more routine participatory veto, where multiple choke points, from environmental impact reviews to historic preservation requirements, allow individuals to block housing projects or make them so financially unfeasible that developers withdraw their bids. Todays YIMBYs are organizing within this existing system, forming local groups to mobilize pro-housing voices at planning meetings and provide political cover for elected officials to make risky decisions. But this strategy of trying to counter the NIMBYs in public life faces inherent scaling limitations. Its possible to pack local meetings in major cities with dissenting voices, but its much harder to sustain that level of organizing across thousands of small- and medium-sized jurisdictions, especially given the housing crisis mounting urgency.Thats why many pro-housing advocates have turned to state-level intervention essentially arguing that sometimes real democracy requires overriding local democratic processes. Governors and other statewide officials are forced to see the bigger picture because theyre accountable not only to the people who live in a particular community, but also to past residents priced out of and displaced from that community, and to future residents as well, Demsas writes. Its a paradox that echoes earlier civil rights battles: using higher levels of government to ensure broader participation and protect minority interests, even when that means overruling local control.Escaping the Housing Trap offers an alternative vision: promoting smaller-scale, community-led development. Strong Towns advocates for all cities to accept some level of change while taking radical neighborhood transformation off the table. This grand bargain, as they put it where single-family homes can transform at least into duplexes aims to turn NIMBYs skeptical of development into more self-interested partners. Strong Towns also argues this approach will lead to more sustainable fiscal growth.But its hard to ignore that this more patient, conflict-avoidant strategy runs up against the pressing need of the housing shortage in big, desirable cities like Seattle or Los Angeles. It also misses that even in lots of local communities, residents have ardently fought even modest developments like accessory dwelling units.Despite their divergent paths to housing reform, all three authors agree on who loses most from the countrys failure to build: renters, first-time homebuyers, and poor people. Perhaps most importantly, its everyone who doesnt yet live in a community but who might benefit from its resources the future residents who never get a say in todays planning meetings.Are we moving forward?After years of inaction, there are reasons to be optimistic that lawmakers might finally be ready to tackle the housing supply gap.Over the last five years, states across the political spectrum from Oregon and California to Florida and Montana have moved to update zoning codes and transform residential planning rules. This year alone, Maryland, Arizona, New Jersey, and Colorado passed new housing laws.Housing was a top issue during the presidential campaign, and high costs remain a pressing concern for voters. Even those against new development know they have to couch their opposition in vague YIMBY language these days, acknowledging that yes of course we need more housing but we must guard against displacement, corporate developer influence, and environmental harm.Still, weve seen promising moments before. As Burling notes, a 1991 federal report warned that increasingly expensive and time-consuming permit-approval process[es], exclusionary zoning, and well-intentioned laws were pricing out young families. More striking still, that same report acknowledged that in the previous 25 years, no more than 10 federally sponsored commissions had examined these exact issues, usually to little avail. The YIMBY battles of 2024 echo debates weve been having for generations.I asked the authors if they believe this time will finally be different or whether were on the verge of seeing yet another generation succumb to the status quo.Demsas warns that some YIMBYs have taken premature victory laps. While mainstream figures like Barack Obama now vocally acknowledge the importance of increasing housing supply, she argues the implications of this position remain less examined. When this comes into tension with historic preservation or public meeting participation norms ... then what? She points to Harriss housing proposals, which avoided the thorny details of zoning reform in favor of more populist ideas targeting corporate landlords.Burling finds hope in the crisiss unavoidable visibility. The manifestation of the problem is much more clear than it used to be with the vast number of homeless encampments, he told me. We reached and went over a tipping point ... the predictions that this crisis is going to get worse unfortunately have come true.Marohn of Strong Towns also sees potential for change, though he believes it will have to be locally led given constraints in our national financial system.Marohn argues that todays housing crisis stems from a post-WWII experiment in urban development. Determined to avoid another Depression, policymakers created an approach centered on rapid expansion, incentivizing cities to pursue growth that ultimately depleted tax bases and created unsustainable liabilities. Now, he warns, cities are discovering that all this infrastructure is too costly to maintain with current tax revenue. Yet he sees cities as uniquely positioned to lead on reform: Unlike traditional bank lenders constrained by the 30-year mortgage, cities can access low-interest capital to support the smaller-scale projects he sees as essential for lasting change.Housing reforms next chapterThe political path forward is murky. Early in Trumps first term, his administration showed YIMBY tendencies, establishing a White House Council to tackle local zoning restrictions. But by 2020, Trumps rhetoric shifted dramatically toward NIMBYism, warning voters that Democrats would totally destroy the beautiful suburbs. The Heritage Foundations Project 2025 blueprint reflects these tensions by advocating deregulation while also emphasizing local control and prioritizing single-family homes, exactly the kind of housing that puts ownership out of reach for many Americans. Trump has publicly disavowed Project 2025, but hes already tapped some of its key authors and supporters to join his new administration. Trumps selection of a former NFL player with no clear housing record to lead the Department of Housing and Urban Development adds another layer of uncertainty to how his administration will ultimately govern. Yet the pressure for reform continues to grow. The recent launch of a bipartisan YIMBY caucus in Congress signals housings staying power as a national priority. The fact that even critics of market-rate development now frame their arguments in more supply-friendly terms suggests a genuine shift in how we talk about housing.But as these three books reveal, consensus about the problem doesnt ensure agreement on solutions. The philosophical divides they explore will shape housing policy for years to come. Whats different now isnt the substance of these debates, but their urgency. The expanding ranks of Americans priced out of stable housing have transformed the crisis from an abstract policy concern to an unavoidable, immediate challenge.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·97 Views
  • Final warning as 62 SEGA classics are delisted, including Sonic, Crazy Taxi and more
    www.dailystar.co.uk
    Just two days until SEGA classics, including Sonic, Crazy Taxi and Streets of Rage will disappear from digital storefronts, including PlayStation Store, Xbox Store, Nintendo Switch store and Steam.
    0 Reacties ·0 aandelen ·116 Views