The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only membership community of leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual dues for access to peer learning, thought leadership opportunities, events and more. I’m not one to jump on every shiny new tool just because it’s trending. Some tech tools, gadgets, and software have transformed my life for the better (like the Meta Quest), and some ventures did not fare so well (I will ignore Apple Watch’s reminders to stand until the end of time).   But AI? It’s different. AI isn’t in the same league as the other tech you know and love. This is not just another tool, it’s a shift in how we think, create, and operate. At Quantious, we’ve dedicated the past few years to learning everything there is to know about AI, and we’ve embraced it not as a crutch, but as a catalyst.   As a longtime agency owner, I know the importance of finding ways for my team to work smarter, faster, and more creatively. So, here’s why I encourage my employees to use AI every day.  1. AI allows us to be better creatives  We keep up with the news—we know some are saying that AI will kill creativity and make us dumber. At Quantious, we prefer to give our employees ownership to explore firsthand how AI tools can fuel fresh ways of thinking and offer new angles. Our designers leverage AI while prototyping, our copywriters lean on it to work through creative blocks, and our strategists use it to analyze massive amounts of data effortlessly.   Through experimentation and education on responsible AI practices, we’re seeing that AI isn’t replacing our creative instincts, it’s sharpening them. We’re breaking through limits, unlocking ideas we never considered, and pushing creative boundaries in our work like never before.   2. AI keeps us at the top of our game  AI is only going to get more advanced, more complex, and more intelligent. By weaving AI into our daily processes now in ethical and responsible ways, we’re future-proofing our team and staying ahead of the curve.   AI literacy will soon be table stakes for business leaders and employees looking to stay at the top of their game. We’re already “bridging the gap between awareness and applied proficiency,” a goal organizations must embrace to remain competitive.  Most importantly, we’re cultivating a workplace culture that thrives on change instead of fearing change. We prioritize ongoing training, fostering a culture where our teams feel empowered to experiment with AI, and excited to discuss tips, tricks, and findings. This isn’t just a valuable mindset to have—it’s our edge.   That said, our team knows better than to fully rely on AI tools. We’ve asked ChatGPT to pull trending news articles, to which it created fake URLs to nonexistent stories. We’re not just using AI, we’re understanding its quirks, its limitations, and how it’s evolved over time.   3. AI supports remote (and hybrid) work  Quantious is fully remote, with employees worldwide, so staying aligned and organized is crucial to our success. We now generate advanced spreadsheet formulas in minutes to streamline our workflows, saving our teams countless hours. We get AI-generated meeting note summaries after internal meetings, a simple yet effective way to document our company procedures and keep everyone in the loop.   AI has made our remote work more productive, seamless, well-documented, and so much more. We’ve crossed a threshold—AI has redefined teamwork, and there’s no going back  There are endless AI tools that can help you do everything from managing tasks to improving your public speaking skills. Without taking the time to learn about these tools, you’ll never know what you’re missing out on.  At the end of the day, AI is just another tool. How we use it is what counts most. Encouraging my team to explore AI is not about replacing talent or even “working smarter, not harder” (though I’m not against the latter). It’s about cultivating a positive workplace culture alongside a team full of curious, adaptable, and continuous learners. My team and I refuse to sit on the sidelines while the industry evolves. Instead, we’re here to shape how it grows.   Lisa Larson-Kelley is founder and CEO of Quantious. 

A new auto startup is launching with a made-in-America EV that with federal tax credits will cost just $20,000. Backed by Jeff Bezos and Eric Schmidt, Slate Auto says that affordable price is possible because of its pared-down, basic model that can then be customized—and even transformed from a truck into an SUV.Slate Auto has been in stealth for almost three years, says CEO Chris Barman, who worked as a Chrysler executive until 2017. Based in Michigan, Slate spun out of Re:Build Manufacturing, a company cofounded by Jeff Wilke, former CEO of Amazon’s worldwide consumer business. Slate purports to be “rekindling American industry” with a suite of U.S. industrial businesses, from batteries to composite manufacturing. (Barman is employee number two at Slate; the company now has more than 400 employees.)Recently, concept vehicles wrapped in ads for fake businesses began appearing on California streets. The company is officially launching today, with refundable vehicle reservations open now for $50. In recent days, the company has put some of its prototype vehicles on California streets, showcasing the possible configurations that will be available.“When baby drives you crazy, we drive them to sleep,” read one ad for a faux company called CryShare, wrapped around a two-door, boxy SUV. The included website, rockabyerides.com, went to a sign-up page that read “What’s a Slate? Be the first to find out.” Another vehicle with a hatchback cap was covered in ads for cat therapy sessions, and a third, a pickup truck, with ads for a fake human taxidermy service.[Photo: Slate]The unique marketing campaign was meant to be unlike any traditional vehicle unveiling. “We want to look at things very differently than what traditional automotive has done and what traditional automotive is providing to a consumer,” Barman says. That ethos also applies to the design of the Slate Truck, intended as a basic platform that can be accessorized by any customer.[Image: Slate]A blank slate The Slate Truck will begin as a two-door, two-seat electric pickup, with crank windows and no infotainment system. New cars today can come with lots of built-in features—large screens, heated seats, and so on—but to design Slate, Barman says, it was about “What are really the essentials that should go into a vehicle in order to bring it down to a price point that is affordable?”Customers will be able to be pick from more than 100 accessories to add on for an extra cost—everything from cup holders to a center console to a single roof crossbar to power windows. Since many people use their phones for music and navigation, the company eliminated the infotainment system to cut costs. Instead, there’s an accompanying app (at no charge) that drivers will be able to use when in the vehicle. If someone wants a radio in their Slate, it’s been designed so that one could be easily installed.Barman says Slate wants to change the typical process in which a buyer goes to a new- or used-car lot and picks a car, and then has to accept—and pay for—all the features it comes with. “We’ve decoupled that and said to the owner of the vehicle: ‘You choose. You choose if you want a radio. You choose if you want to have heated seats. You choose what you want the color to be,’” she says. “We are putting the power back into the hands of the consumer, so we give them this blank slate, and then they decide.” [Image: Slate]The Slate Truck will have exterior panels that are composite, rather than sheet metal. When using sheet metal, companies must have machines that stamp out the pieces; Slate’s composite panels will be made using injection molds. That means the company doesn’t have to invest in a stamping operation or a paint shop—which can run $400 million or more for automakers, Barman says. It also means the EV isn’t limited to a few colorways. Instead, drivers could put a wrap on it in any color they want. Slate envisions offering customers a wrap kit of die-cut pieces as well as instructional videos so they will be able to do it themselves (the Slate Truck was also designed without any external hardware so that wraps can be applied more easily). Or, the company will offer to prewrap the vehicle before delivery; it plans to have a network of partners in neighborhoods across the country that will be able to perform the installation for customers. (The wrapped vehicles that appeared with fake ads were a nod to this customization element.) [Image: Slate]Slate will offer two EV battery options: The standard comes with a range of 150 miles, but customers will be able to upgrade to a battery with an estimated 240 miles of range. The body of the EV will also be alterable, going from a two-door pickup to a five-seat SUV, with upgrades. Barman notes that customers could even do those changes over time, rather than when they first purchase the vehicle.“Maybe when [someone] first buys it, they’re single or just married, and after a few years they have a family, they can convert it,” she says. “And in doing that, it would cost them maybe $5,000 to make that change. But they don’t have to sell their vehicle and buy a completely new one. It’s a very cost-effective way to allow the vehicle to grow with them as their life changes.” [Image: Slate]Offering an affordable EV made in AmericaThose upgrades would add to the EV’s price. If a customer wants a longer-range battery, a wrap, and to turn the truck into an SUV, those adjustments would cost roughly $10,000. The basic version of the Slate Truck, after the federal EV tax credits are applied, comes to $20,000. “Our passion is this mission to bring an affordable vehicle to the market for the many people who felt that they didn’t have an alternative,” Barman says. Slate Auto raised at least $111 million in a Series A funding round in 2023 (under the name Re:Car), according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. Bezos was among 16 investors in that round, TechCrunch previously reported, adding that Slate closed a Series B funding round last year but has yet to file the paperwork. Slate told Fast Company that the Walter Group, led by Mark Walter, CEO of Guggenheim Partners, is also an investor.The EV tax credits offer a total of $7,500 back for vehicles that meet specific requirements like being manufactured in the U.S. Though President Trump has said he wants to get rid of the EV tax credits, they are currently still in place. Barman says Slate hopes they remain available to allow more individuals access to its EV. But if the federal credits do go away, she says, “We have a very affordable vehicle priced in the mid $20,000s, so it’s attractive and very competitive at that price point.” [Image: Slate]The average price of a new car purchased in the U.S. is above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. The average price of a new EV is even higher, at $55,500. While markets like China have been able to build ultra-affordable EVs, some as low as $10,000, those options haven’t been available for car buyers in the U.S. (though automakers have said that they’re working on affordable options). With a $50,000 new car, consumers can expect a monthly payment of around $900, Barman says. Even used vehicles, at an average $27,000, can come with monthly payments that exceed $500. Consumers should aim to spend no more than 10% of their monthly take-home pay on car expenses, per Market Watch, but for a new $48,000 car, that means making at least $96,000 a year to afford the $800 monthly payment. In 2023, only 40% of U.S. households made more than $100,000. Barman says monthly payments for a Slate Truck will average $300 to $400.[Image: Slate]Slate Auto will build a factory somewhere in the Midwest, in order to be located near the automotive supply center, but it’s still assessing specific locations. “We really are focused on reindustrializing America,” Barman says. (Some car parts will still have to be purchased from abroad because they are not made domestically at all—like the manual window cranks.) Slate will sell direct to consumer through its website, and the truck will be delivered near customers’ homes; the company plans to set up a nationwide service network as well. Slate plans to bring its EV to market and into consumer hands by the fourth quarter of 2026.

The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only membership community of leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual dues for access to peer learning, thought leadership opportunities, events and more. For anyone following the headlines about African fintechs over the last few years, it must have felt like a wild ride—from buzzing highs to plunging lows, and everything in between. But beneath these surface narratives, a more interesting story is emerging. This will be the year the focus on African fintech shifts from valuations to delivering value, and the process is already underway.  Sustainable practices take center stage  ​​​​​Fintech funding in Africa dropped by 37% from 2022 to 2023. The downward trend persisted in 2024, with funding in the first half of 2024 falling from $864 million to $419 million, a 51% decrease versus the same period in 2023. This funding downturn has forced fintechs to reassess their models, moving away from growth-at-all-costs towards sustainable business practices that emphasize real-world solutions and long-term viability. Now, fintech companies must focus on building resilient, profitable businesses that can thrive without relying on constant infusions of venture funding.  Take Nigeria’s emerging direct debit solutions worth​​​​​​ over $13 billion in 2023, according to the Central Bank of Nigeria. This isn’t a speculative bet on one of the many technology trends. Instead, these are practical innovations that help businesses in the country stabilize cash flow and simplify recurring payments for consumers. The focus on solving real problems rather than securing the next investment round signals a maturing ecosystem—one that prioritizes longevity over hype.   Technology that matters  The shift isn’t happening in a vacuum. African consumers are more selective than ever—they’re not just mobile-first but mobile-native. They expect frictionless digital experiences comparable to global platforms, but with local relevance. This is forcing fintechs to focus on what truly works.   Artificial intelligence plays a role in this transformation, but not in the way many predicted. Fintechs are using AI to enhance fraud detection, automate compliance, and personalize financial services—practical applications that build trust and drive adoption.   Similarly, blockchain is proving valuable beyond speculation. Instead of chasing volatile cryptocurrencies, fintechs are leveraging blockchain to improve cross-border payments, cutting costs, and speeding up remittances. With Africa receiving over $100 billion in annual remittances, these innovations have a direct, meaningful impact. When traditional transfer fees eat into crucial remittances, blockchain’s ability to reduce costs and increase speed isn’t just a technical achievement, it’s a tangible improvement in people’s lives.  The new success metrics  The combination of consumer-driven demand and practical innovation is reshaping how success is measured in African fintech. The next wave of investment won’t be driven by hype or viral success stories. Instead, investors are looking for sustainable growth and profitability over inflated valuations. They are looking for products that address fundamental pain points rather than trend-driven solutions as well as operational efficiency and strong regulatory compliance.   As we enter a new cycle where reality replaces hype, 2025 will mark a turning point for African fintech. The most successful companies won’t be those chasing the biggest headlines but those solving simple, essential problems exceptionally well. This isn’t the end but merely the beginning of a more mature, impactful, and enduring era. The revolution may be quieter than expected, but its impact will be deeper than ever imagined.   Olugbenga GB Agboola is founder and CEO of Flutterwave. 

The tech industry is often cautious about tying layoffs to performance, even if it might play a role in who gets dismissed during widespread job cuts. But this year has signaled a noticeable shift in how some of the biggest players in tech approach layoffs: Earlier this year, Meta cut more than 3,000 employees in a move that the company framed as “non-regrettable attrition.” The number of Amazon employees on performance improvement plans reportedly surged in recent years, leading up to layoffs—and Microsoft has allegedly cut thousands of employees who were classified as “low performers.” Now Microsoft is giving low performers the option to accept a payout and leave the company rather than being placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP), according to a new Business Insider report. Separation agreement or a PIP An internal email obtained by Business Insider outlined Microsoft’s new performance management system, which the company’s chief people officer described as having “clear expectations and a timeline for improvement.” For those who want to forgo performance management, Microsoft is reportedly offering a separation agreement that would be the equivalent of 16 weeks of pay. (Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment and also declined to comment in response to Business Insider’s inquiries.) Any Microsoft employees who are eligible for a buyout reportedly have five days to accept the offer; if they opt to get on a performance improvement plan instead, they forfeit the option to voluntarily resign and receive a payout at a later time. A previous Business Insider report also claimed that Microsoft is now barring low performers who leave the company or get terminated over performance issues from rejoining for at least two years. Shifting strategies for low performers Microsoft’s new strategy for managing low performers is not unheard of in the tech industry. Amazon uses a program called Pivot that presents similar options to employees who are deemed low performers, and Meta reportedly also employs a “block list” of former employees who should not be hired back by the company. But navigating performance-based layoffs can be tricky: At Meta, some employees who were affected by the recent job cuts claimed they had received high ratings on their performance reviews and expressed frustration over the fact that they were publicly characterized as low performers. (Meta did not comment on all such claims, but in response to one report, a company spokesperson said: “Simply because someone had a history of meeting or exceeding expectations, does not mean they continue to consistently meet the bar.”) It’s possible that some of these employees were impacted to meet the 5% quota Meta reportedly set for layoffs across departments, in spite of their performance reviews. Even otherwise, experts say relying solely on performance ratings to determine layoffs can put certain employees at a disadvantage, given the potential bias that is baked into the process. There is also quite a bit of variability across managers and departments, and in some cases employees may not have been performance-managed properly. At a moment when many tech companies are already facing employee dissent and low morale over culture issues—including strict return-to-office mandates—resorting to performance-based layoffs could also engender further mistrust.

Every week, millions of Americans toss their recyclables into a single bin, trusting that their plastic bottles, aluminum cans, and cardboard boxes will be given a new life. But what really happens after the truck picks them up? Single-stream recycling makes participating in recycling easy, but behind the scenes, complex sorting systems and contamination mean a large percentage of that material never gets a second life. Reports in recent years have found 15% to 25% of all the materials picked up from recycle bins ends up in landfills instead. Plastics are among the biggest challenges. Only about 9% of the plastic generated in the U.S. actually gets recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Some plastic is incinerated to produce energy, but most of the rest ends up in landfills instead. So, what makes plastic recycling so difficult? As an engineer whose work focuses on reprocessing plastics, I have been exploring potential solutions. How does single-stream recycling work? In cities that use single-stream recycling, consumers put all of their recyclable materials—paper, cardboard, plastic, glass, and metal—into a single bin. Once collected, the mixed recyclables are taken to a materials recovery facility, where they are sorted. First, the mixed recyclables are shredded and crushed into smaller fragments, enabling more effective separation. The mixed fragments pass over rotating screens that remove cardboard and paper, allowing heavier materials, including plastics, metals and glass, to continue along the sorting line. Magnets are used to pick out ferrous metals, such as steel. A magnetic field that produces an electrical current with eddies sends nonferrous metals, such as aluminum, into a separate stream, leaving behind plastics and glass. The glass fragments are removed from the remaining mix using gravity or vibrating screens. That leaves plastics as the primary remaining material. While single-stream recycling is convenient, it has downsides. Contamination, such as food residue, plastic bags, and items that can’t be recycled, can degrade the quality of the remaining material, making it more difficult to reuse. That lowers its value. Having to remove that contamination raises processing costs and can force recovery centers to reject entire batches. Which plastics typically can’t be recycled? Each recycling program has rules for which items it will and won’t take. You can check which items can and cannot be recycled for your specific program on your municipal page. Often, that means checking the recycling code stamped on the plastic next to the recycling icon. These are the toughest plastics to recycle and most likely to be excluded in your local recycling program: Symbol 3 – Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, found in pipes, shower curtains and some food packaging. It may contain harmful additives such as phthalates and heavy metals. PVC also degrades easily, and melting can release toxic fumes during recycling, contaminating other materials and making it unsafe to process in standard recycling facilities. Symbol 4 – Low-density polyethylene, or LDPE, is often used in plastic bags and shrink-wrap. Because it’s flexible and lightweight, it’s prone to getting tangled in sorting machinery at recycling plants. Symbol 6 – Polystyrene, often used in foam cups, takeout containers and packing peanuts. Because it’s lightweight and brittle, it’s difficult to collect and process and easily contaminates recycling streams. Which plastics to include That leaves three plastics that can be recycled in many facilities: Symbol 1 – Polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, widely used in soda bottles. Symbol 2 – High-density polyethylene, or HDPE, commonly used in milk jugs and laundry detergent bottles. Symbol 5 – Polypropylene, PP, used in products such as pill bottles, yogurt cups, and plastic utensils. However, these aren’t accepted in some facilities for reasons I’ll explain. Taking apart plastics, bead by bead Some plastics can be chemically recycled or ground up for reprocessing, but not all plastics play well together. Simple separation methods, such as placing ground-up plastics in water, can easily remove your soda bottle plastic (PET) from the mixture. The ground-up PET sinks in water due to the plastic’s density. However, HDPE, used in milk jugs, and PP, found in yogurt cups, both float, and they can’t be recycled together. So, more advanced and expensive technology, such as infrared spectroscopy, is often required to separate those two materials. Once separated, the plastic from your soda bottle can be chemically recycled through a process called solvolysis. It works like this: Plastic materials are formed from polymers. A polymer is a molecule with many repeating units, called monomers. Picture a pearl necklace. The individual pearls are the repeating monomer units. The string that runs through the pearls is the chemical bond that joins the monomer units together. The entire necklace can then be thought of as a single molecule. During solvolysis, chemists break down that necklace by cutting the string holding the pearls together until they are individual pearls. Then, they string those pearls together again to create new necklaces. Other chemical recycling methods, such as pyrolysis and gasification, have drawn environmental and health concerns because the plastic is heated, which can release toxic fumes. But chemical recycling also holds the potential to reduce both plastic waste and the need for new plastics, while generating energy. The problem of yogurt cups and milk jugs The other two common types of recycled plastics—items such as yogurt cups (PP) and milk jugs (HDPE)—are like oil and water: Each can be recycled through reprocessing, but they don’t mix. If polyethylene and polypropylene aren’t completely separated during recycling, the resulting mix can be brittle and generally unusable for creating new products. Chemists are working on solutions that could increase the quality of recycled plastics through mechanical reprocessing, typically done at separate facilities. One promising mechanical method for recycling mixed plastics is to incorporate a chemical called a compatibilizer. Compatibilizers contain the chemical structure of multiple different polymers in the same molecule. It’s like how lecithin, commonly found in egg yolks, can help mix oil and water to make mayonnaise—part of the lecithin molecule is in the oil phase and part is in the water phase. In the case of yogurt cups and milk jugs, recently developed block copolymers are able to produce recycled plastic materials with the flexibility of polyethylene and the strength of polypropylene. Improving recycling Research like this can make recycled materials more versatile and valuable and move products closer to a goal of a circular economy without waste. However, improving recycling also requires better recycling habits. You can help the recycling process by taking a few minutes to wash off food waste, avoiding putting plastic bags in your recycling bin and, importantly, paying attention to what can and cannot be recycled in your area. Alex Jordan is an associate professor of plastics engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Even as the right to disconnect movement has picked up steam, true work-life balance is still hard to come by for many employees. Fielding emails and other work-related messages after hours continues to be the norm across workplaces, despite ample evidence that it can contribute to burnout and actually decrease productivity. Part of the issue may be that the average workday is punctuated by a mounting number of drains on productivity. A new report from Microsoft, which compiled input from 31,000 workers across more than 30 countries, sheds light on the scale of interruptions and hurdles workers are currently facing on the job, as well as the degree to which the average workday has stretched beyond traditional business hours. The price of near-constant interruptions While 53% of leaders say they want to see a spike in productivity, the overwhelming majority of employees and managers alike—about 80% of workers globally—claim that they don’t have the time or energy to effectively do their jobs. Employees say they are being interrupted near constantly during the workday, juggling emails, meetings, or real-time messages every two minutes. That can amount to 275 daily interruptions on the whole, when taking into account the additional time employees spend on the job beyond standard working hours. In fact, the report also captures a marked increase in the number of pings that workers receive after hours: Chats outside of the 9-to-5 window increased by 15% year over year, yielding an average of 58 messages when tallied over the course of four weeks. An expanding workday Even meetings appear to be happening around the clock, according to the report, in part because so many companies now employ people who are working across time zones. Meetings that take place after 8 p.m. had increased by 16% year over year, and 30% of meetings involve employees in different time zones. Part of this shift could also be driven by the fact that the majority of meetings—60%—are unscheduled and convened on an ad hoc basis. (Also of note: The number of PowerPoint edits jump by 122% in the 10 minutes leading up to a meeting, a stark contrast to PowerPoint activity in the hours prior.) What could help reduce burnout All this points to a broader disconnect between the business needs of many companies and what their workforce can reasonably accommodate, a strain that both employees and leaders seem to be feeling. According to Microsoft’s findings, 48% of employees and 52% of leaders claim their workload is “chaotic and fragmented.” The report makes the case for why companies will need to use AI agents to bridge the gap, and almost half of all leaders have already said using “digital labor” to augment the existing capabilities of their workforce is a top priority for the next 18 months. But AI alone won’t alleviate the many pains of modern work for employees or managers—and it certainly won’t put a stop to superfluous meetings overnight.

So many mourners lined up to see Pope Francis lying in state in a simple wooden coffin inside St. Peter’s Basilica that the Vatican kept the doors open all night due to higher-than-expected turnout, closing the basilica for just an hour Thursday morning for cleaning.The basilica is bathed in a hushed silence as mourners from across the globe make a slow, shuffling procession up the main aisle to pay their last respects to Francis, who died Monday after a stroke.The hours spent on line up the stately via della Conciliazione through St. Peter’s Square and through the Holy Door into the basilica has allowed mourners to find community around the Argentine pontiff’s legacy of inclusion and humble persona.Emiliano Fernandez, a Catholic from Mexico, was waiting in line around midnight, and after two hours still had not reached the basilica.“I don’t even care how much time I wait here. It’s just the opportunity to (show) how I admired Francisco in his life,” said Fernandez, whose admiration for the pope grew during his 2016 visit to Mexico. “I think because of the respect that I have for him and the great person he was, it’s worth the wait.”The last numbers released by the Vatican said more than 50,000 people had paid their respects during the first 12 hours of the public viewing, starting at 11 a.m. Wednesday. The basilica closed for just one hour Thursday morning, from 6 a.m. until 7 a.m., the planned opening time.Among the first-day mourners was a church group of 14-year-olds from near Milan who arrived for the now-suspended canonization of the first millennial saint, as well as a woman who prayed to the pope for a successful operation and an Italian family who brought their small children to see the pope’s body.“We came because we didn’t bring them when he was alive, so we thought we would bring them for a final farewell,” said Rosa Scorpati, who was exiting the basilica Wednesday with her three children in strollers. “They were good, but I don’t think they really understood because they haven’t yet had to deal with death.”Like many others, the Scorpati family from Calabria was in Rome on an Easter vacation, only to be met with the news of Francis’ death on Easter Monday.Out of devotion to the pope and his message of inclusion, the grieving faithful joined the procession of mourners that wended from St. Peter’s Square through the basilica’s Holy Door, with the repentant among them winning an indulgence, a form of atonement granted during the Jubilee Holy Year. From there, the line extended down the basilica’s central aisle to the pope’s simple wooden casket.By late Wednesday, the wait appeared to be three or four hours and growing. A person doing crowd management estimated that the wait was closer to five hours. The mourners stretched down the center of Via della Conciliazione, in a lane set aside for Jubilee pilgrims.After three days of public viewing, a funeral Mass including heads of state will be held Saturday in St. Peter’s Square. The pope will then be buried in a niche within the St. Mary Major Basilica, near his favorite Madonna icon.The death of Francis, who was 88, capped a 12-year pontificate characterized by his concern for the poor and his message of inclusion, but he was also criticized by some conservatives who felt alienated by his progressive outlook.A procession of priests, bishops and cardinals accompanied Francis’ body Wednesday on its journey from a private viewing inside the Vatican to St. Peter’s Square. The pageantry contrasted with the human interactions of rank-and-file mourners at the public viewing.Francis lay in state in an open casket, perched on a ramp facing mourners, with four Swiss Guards standing at attention. As the crowd reached the casket, many lifted their smartphones to snap a photo.One nun accompanying an elderly woman with a cane walked away sobbing, “My pope is gone.”Such despair was rare. The mood was more one of gratitude for a pope who had, by example, taught many people to open their minds.“I am very devoted to the pope,” said Ivenes Bianco, who was in Rome from Brindisi, Italy, for an operation. “He was important to me because he brought many people together by encouraging coexistence.” She cited Francis’ acceptance of the gay community and his insistence on helping the poor.Humbeline Coroy came to Rome from Perpignan, France, for the planned canonization Sunday of 15-year-old Carlo Acutis, which was suspended after the pope’s death. She stayed to pay respects to Francis, enjoying exchanges with Japanese mourners they met as they waited under the sun in St. Peter’s Square.“For me, it is a lot of things. In my job, I work with disabled children, and I traveled to Madagascar to work with poor people. Being here, and close to the pope, is a way of integrating these experiences, and make them concrete,” she said. Coroy also brought prayers for her father, who is sick with cancer.For Alessandra Nardi, the pope’s death brought back memories of the death three years ago of her beloved uncle Luigi, who used to call her from St. Peter’s Square when he came to see Pope Francis say Mass. He “let me hear the bells toll. It was a beautiful thing.”Riccardo Ojedea from Colombia said his experience waiting in line for two hours to pay respects to the pope had shown him how much “humanity loves the pope.”“He left a very important legacy for everyone,” he said, “to make this world happier.”——AP video journalist Isaia Montelione contributed. —Colleen Barry, Associated Press

Reading just got a whole lot cooler. Online Ceramics, a cult East L.A. clothing brand that makes hand-dyed apparel for artists like the Grateful Dead and André 3000 and helped A24 win the movie merch game, has a new capsule collection with the biggest trade publisher in the world that celebrates the freedom to read. [Photo: courtesy Online Ceramics/Penguin Random House] The “Reading Is a Right” collaboration with Penguin Random House comes against a backdrop of increasing book bans across the country. Penguin Random House is among the publishers suing states like Idaho and Florida over recent laws they say are onerous and could lead to public and school library bans on books by beloved authors like Maya Angelou, Ernest Hemingway, George R. R. Martin, and Toni Morrison. The collaboration is an attempt to fight back through merch, raising awareness, and fundraising. [Photo: courtesy Online Ceramics/Penguin Random House] The collection includes Online Ceramics cream and tie-dyed T-shirts with the publisher’s penguin mascot and an opened book that says “Practice Magic: Read.” Prices range from $5 for a “Read a Banned Book” bumper sticker to $35 for “Reading Is a Right” socks. Hoodies are priced as high as $135, but 100% of Penguin Random House’s net proceeds will be donated to the nonprofit American Library Association (ALA). [Photo: courtesy Online Ceramics/Penguin Random House] The gesture is welcomed. “This message is incredibly timely in this climate when censorship is rampant and federal funding for libraries has been gutted,” ALA’s president, Cindy Hohl, said in a statement. There were book challenges against 2,452 unique titles in 2024, according to ALA data, a figure far above the average 273 unique titles challenged annually over the period from 2001 to 2020. And President Donald Trump signed an executive order cutting the Institute of Museum and Library Services, which provides federal funding to libraries. [Photo: courtesy Online Ceramics/Penguin Random House] Penguin Random House publishes more than 14,000 new works annually. It’s the parent company to subsidiaries that have published bestsellers like former First Lady Michelle Obama’s Becoming and classics from George Orwell’s 1984 to Eric Carle’s The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Online Ceramics cofounder Elijah Funk called Penguin Random House “the absolute epicenter of all things books” in a statement, and for him, teaming up for “Reading Is a Right” was a long time coming. [Photo: courtesy Online Ceramics/Penguin Random House] “I’ve always wanted to partner with them, and once I found out about their work standing up for the freedom to read, I knew we needed to highlight their efforts as a positive force for good and bring more visibility to this issue,” Funk said. “There’s a reason books are usually one of the first things to be burned or banned from communities. Books are about justice, freedom, history, and imagination: some of the most powerful tools a person or community can have. And the library makes them free and accessible for every person.” With book bans on the rise, “Reading Is a Right” gives people a new way to show their love of reading on their sleeves and raise some money to support U.S. libraries in the process.

Anjan Roy was studying with friends at Missouri State University when he got an email that turned his world upside down. His legal status as an international student had been terminated, and he was suddenly at risk for deportation.“I was in literal shock, like, what the hell is this?” said Roy, a graduate student in computer science from Bangladesh.At first, he avoided going out in public, skipping classes and mostly keeping his phone turned off. A court ruling in his favor led to his status being restored this week, and he has returned to his apartment, but he is still asking his roommates to screen visitors.More than a thousand international students have faced similar disruptions in recent weeks, with their academic careers—and their lives in the U.S.—thrown into doubt in a widespread crackdown by the Trump administration. Some have found a measure of success in court, with federal judges around the country issuing orders to restore students’ legal status at least temporarily.In addition to the case filed in Atlanta, where Roy is among 133 plaintiffs, judges have issued temporary restraining orders in states including New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. Judges have denied similar requests in some other cases, saying it was not clear the loss of status would cause irreparable harm. International students challenge grounds for their status revocation Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month the State Department was revoking visas held by visitors who were acting counter to national interests, including some who protested Israel’s war in Gaza and those who face criminal charges. But many affected students said they have been involved only in minor infractions, or it’s unclear altogether why they were targeted.The attorney for Roy and his fellow plaintiffs, Charles Kuck, argued the government did not have legal grounds to terminate the students’ status.He speculated in court last week the government is trying to encourage these students to self-deport, saying “the pressure on these students is overwhelming.” He said some asked him if it was safe to leave their homes to get food, and others worried they wouldn’t receive a degree after years of work or feared their chances of a career in the U.S. were shot.“I think the hope is they’ll just leave,” Kuck said. “The reality is these kids are invested.”An attorney for the government, R. David Powell, argued the students did not suffer significant harm because they could transfer their academic credits or find jobs in another country.At least 1,100 students at 174 colleges, universities and university systems have had their visas revoked or their legal status terminated since late March, according to an Associated Press review of university statements, correspondence with school officials and court records. The AP is working to confirm reports of hundreds more students who are caught up in the crackdown.In a lawsuit filed Monday by four people on student visas at the University of Iowa, attorneys detail the “mental and financial suffering” they’ve experienced. One graduate student, from India, “cannot sleep and is having difficulty breathing and eating,” the lawsuit reads. He has stopped going to school, doing research or working as a teaching assistant. Another student, a Chinese undergraduate who expected to graduate this December, said his revoked status has caused his depression to worsen to the point that his doctor increased his medication dosage. The student, the lawsuit says, has not left his apartment out of fear of detention. Tiny infractions made students targets for the crackdown Roy, 23, began his academic career at Missouri State in August 2024 as an undergraduate computer science student. He was active in the chess club and a fraternity and has a broad circle of friends. After graduating in December, he began work on a master’s degree in January and expects to finish in May 2026.When Roy received the university’s April 10 email on his status termination, one of his friends offered to skip class to go with him to the school’s international services office, even though they had a quiz in 45 minutes. The staff there said a database check showed his student status had been terminated, but they didn’t know why.Roy said his only brush with the law came in 2021, when he was questioned by campus security after someone called in a dispute at a university housing building. But he said an officer determined there was no evidence of any crime and no charges were filed.Roy also got an email from the U.S. embassy in Bangladesh telling him his visa had been revoked and that he could be detained at any time. It warned that if he was deported, he could be sent to a country other than his own. Roy thought about leaving the U.S. but decided to stay after talking to a lawyer.Anxious about being in his own apartment, Roy went to stay with his second cousin and her husband nearby.“They were scared someone was going to pick me up from the street and take me somewhere that they wouldn’t even know,” Roy said.He mostly stayed inside, turned off his phone unless he needed to use it, and avoided internet browsers that track user data through cookies. His professors were understanding when he told them he wouldn’t be able to come to classes for a while, he said. New doubts about students’ future in the U.S. After the judge’s order Friday, he moved back to his apartment. He learned Tuesday his status had been restored, and he plans to return to class. But he’s still nervous. He asked his two roommates, both international students, to let him know before they open the door if someone they don’t know knocks.The judge’s restoration of his legal status is temporary. Another hearing scheduled for Thursday will determine whether he keeps that status while the litigation continues.Roy chose the U.S. over other options in Canada and Australia because of the research opportunities and potential for professional connections, and he ultimately wanted to teach at an American university. But now those plans are up in the air.His parents, back in Dhaka, have been watching the news and are “freaked out,” he said. His father mentioned to him that they have family in Melbourne, Australia, including a cousin who’s an assistant professor at a university there. _AP reporters Christopher L. Keller in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Hannah Fingerhut in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this story. The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. —Kate Brumback, Associated Press

Former employees of OpenAI are asking the top law enforcement officers in California and Delaware to stop the company from shifting control of its artificial intelligence technology from a nonprofit charity to a for-profit business.They’re concerned about what happens if the ChatGPT maker fulfills its ambition to build AI that outperforms humans, but is no longer accountable to its public mission to safeguard that technology from causing grievous harms.“Ultimately, I’m worried about who owns and controls this technology once it’s created,” said Page Hedley, a former policy and ethics adviser at OpenAI, in an interview with the Associated Press.Backed by three Nobel Prize winners and other advocates and experts, Hedley and nine other ex-OpenAI workers sent a letter this week to the two state attorneys general.The coalition is asking California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, both Democrats, to use their authority to protect OpenAI’s charitable purpose and block its planned restructuring. OpenAI is incorporated in Delaware and operates out of San Francisco.OpenAI said in response that “any changes to our existing structure would be in service of ensuring the broader public can benefit from AI.” It said its for-profit will be a public benefit corporation, similar to other AI labs like Anthropic and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s xAI, except that OpenAI will still preserve a nonprofit arm.“This structure will continue to ensure that as the for-profit succeeds and grows, so too does the nonprofit, enabling us to achieve the mission,” the company said in a statement.The letter is the second petition to state officials this month. The last came from a group of labor leaders and nonprofits focused on protecting OpenAI’s billions of dollars of charitable assets.Jennings said last fall she would “review any such transaction to ensure that the public’s interests are adequately protected.” Bonta’s office sought more information from OpenAI late last year but has said it can’t comment, even to confirm or deny if it is investigating.OpenAI’s cofounders, including current CEO Sam Altman and Musk, originally started it as a nonprofit research laboratory on a mission to safely build what’s known as artificial general intelligence, or AGI, for humanity’s benefit. Nearly a decade later, OpenAI has reported its market value as $300 billion and counts 400 million weekly users of ChatGPT, its flagship product.OpenAI already has a for-profit subsidiary but faces a number of challenges in converting its core governance structure. One is a lawsuit from Musk, who accuses the company and Altman of betraying the founding principles that led the Tesla CEO to invest in the charity.While some of the signatories of this week’s letter support Musk’s lawsuit, Hedley said others are “understandably cynical” because Musk also runs his own rival AI company.The signatories include two Nobel-winning economists, Oliver Hart and Joseph Stiglitz, as well as AI pioneers and computer scientists Geoffrey Hinton, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, and Stuart Russell.“I like OpenAI’s mission to ‘ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity,’ and I would like them to execute that mission instead of enriching their investors,” Hinton said in a statement Wednesday. “I’m happy there is an effort to hold OpenAI to its mission that does not involve Elon Musk.”Conflicts over OpenAI’s purpose have long simmered at the San Francisco institute, contributing to Musk quitting in 2018, Altman’s short-lived ouster in 2023 and other high-profile departures.Hedley, a lawyer by training, worked for OpenAI in 2017 and 2018, a time when the nonprofit was still navigating the best ways to steward the technology it wanted to build. As recently as 2023, Altman said advanced AI held promise but also warned of extraordinary risks, from drastic accidents to societal disruptions.In recent years, however, Hedley said he watched with concern as OpenAI, buoyed by the success of ChatGPT, was increasingly cutting corners on safety testing and rushing out new products to get ahead of business competitors.“The costs of those decisions will continue to go up as the technology becomes more powerful,” he said. “I think that in the new structure that OpenAI wants, the incentives to rush to make those decisions will go up and there will no longer be anybody really who can tell them not to, tell them this is not OK.”Software engineer Anish Tondwalkar, a former member of OpenAI’s technical team until last year, said an important assurance in OpenAI’s nonprofit charter is a “stop-and-assist clause” that directs OpenAI to stand down and help if another organization is nearing the achievement of better-than-human AI.“If OpenAI is allowed to become a for-profit, these safeguards, and OpenAI’s duty to the public can vanish overnight,” Tondwalkar said in a statement Wednesday.Another former worker who signed the letter puts it more bluntly.“OpenAI may one day build technology that could get us all killed,” said Nisan Stiennon, an AI engineer who worked at OpenAI from 2018 to 2020. “It is to OpenAI’s credit that it’s controlled by a nonprofit with a duty to humanity. This duty precludes giving up that control.” The Associated Press and OpenAI have a licensing and technology agreement that allows OpenAI access to part of AP’s text archives. —Matt O’Brien, AP Technology Writer

The infamous “Am I the A**hole?” subreddit is making its way to the small screen. Hosted by Jimmy Carr, the new game show for Comedy Central U.K. will feature members of the public appearing before Carr and a panel of two comedians to reveal their deepest secrets and most bizarre disputes—before receiving judgment, per Deadline. The show is based on the popular Reddit subreddit of the same name, which boasts 24 million members at the time of writing. The subreddit’s creator, Marc Beaulac, is one of the executive producers of the series. Jimmy Carr’s Am I the A**hole? is being produced by STV Studios-owned Tuesday’s Child. Filming will take place in late spring, and the series is set to premiere later this year on Comedy Central U.K., consisting of eight hour-long episodes. Steph Harris, executive producer at Tuesday’s Child, said per Chortle: Am I the A**hole? is only a question you ask if you’re convinced you’re right in an argument, but will our guests get the answer they’re hoping for when they share awkward real-life scenarios with comedians who pull no punches in delivering judgments?” Carr added: “Seems odd that anyone would ask me to host a show about a**holes. I should be grateful, but I feel a little insulted. I guess I’m an a**hole. Well, it takes an a**hole to know an a**hole, so I’m the right man for the job. “I’m very much looking forward to being Comedy Central’s proctologist-in-residence. There are an impressive number of a**holes in our country, and they’re finally getting the recognition they deserve on national television.” From giving your stay-at-home wife a written performance review (kind of the A-hole) to calling out a lactose-intolerant milk thief (not the A-hole), Reddit’s “Am I the A**hole” thread—also known by the acronym AITA—has become a safe space for people to vent anonymously and ask an impartial jury of Internet strangers: Am I in the wrong? Since its creation in 2013, AITA has evolved from a niche online forum into a cultural phenomenon, the subject of philosophical and demographic study and endless internet discourse. Over a decade on, it has inspired an entire ecosystem, including TikToks and podcast episodes dedicated to dissecting the most viral posts. Now, a panel of comedians and a TV audience will have their turn weighing in on real-life conflicts—offering insight, validation, or, in some cases, a much-needed dose of self-reflection.

Starbucks is brewing up something new in Texas—and this time, it’s not just what’s in the cup. Next week, the coffee giant will open its first-ever 3D-printed store, a drive-thru-only location in Brownsville that looks more like the future of construction than your average café. Built with layers of concrete piped out by a giant robotic printer, the 1,400-square-foot structure is part of the company’s ongoing effort to modernize operations and trim costs. But does a 3D-printed café actually save money—or is this just a buzzworthy experiment? Is 3D-printing more cost-effective? Peri-3D, a German company, used a giant 3D printer to pump out layers of concrete mixture to create the structure. According to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, the cost for building the small scale coffee shop was about $1.2 million. The accounting platform Freshbooks says building a restaurant from the ground up can cost up to $2 million. However, a smaller-scale quick-serve restaurant may cost less to build. According to KRG Hospitality, it costs around $535 per square foot to build a quick serve restaurant, which comes out to $749,000 for a 1,400-square-foot structure like the new Starbucks—a bit less than the $1.2 price tag for the 3D-printed build. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Brownsville Today (@brownsvilletoday) Of course, the new method is a first for the brand. And builders say, the more they use the technology, the more efficient they are at it. In Georgetown, Texas, an entire community of 100 homes was recently built using 3D-printing. The company who built the community, Lennar, says they’re seeing costs drop with each build. Stuart Miller, chairman and co-CEO of Lennar, told CNBC earlier this year that the construction company says their costs and cycle time go down “by half” by adopting 3D-printing.  “This is significant improvement in evolving a housing market that has the ability to change over time and being more adaptable and more functional in providing affordable and attainable housing for a broader swath of the market,” said Miller.Likewise, many building materials are becoming more expensive all the time. According to a 2023 report by construction cost data tracking firm Gordian, 82.5% of construction materials have skyrocketed since 2020, with the average increase at 19%. Now that the impact of tariffs is looming, those costs are expected to increase even more.3D-printing is also much faster, meaning that projects can be completed in a fraction of the time, potentially drastically cutting labor costs. According to the World Economic Forum, 3D-printing can cost just 30% of what building structures the old-fashioned way costs. That’s why some companies are using it as a tool to address labor shortages and the housing crisis. The future of restaurant building? 3D-printing is gaining momentum for construction purposes, given it’s less time-consuming and has the power to be less costly. In addition to housing, in Japan, a 3D-printed train station was just erected. And Peri-3D, itself, has completed at least 15 construction projects, including residential buildings in Europe and Germany.3D-printing has been incorporated into some restaurants when it comes to customizing food, or even making 3D-printed furniture, too. But building restaurants with the technology is a brand-new development. With restaurant chains looking for cost-cutting initiatives in the wake of inflation, rising operating costs, and the impact of tariffs, 3D-printing could eventually become a time-slashing, and cost-slashing way for establishments to expand.  Especially because, no matter how the restaurants are built, the food, and the coffee, are likely to taste the same.

The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only membership community of leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual dues for access to peer learning, thought leadership opportunities, events and more. A company’s corporate brand name should be its hardest working marketing asset. Nothing will be used more often or for longer than the company’s name. And in a world where competitors can copy almost everything else, they can’t duplicate your name. However, sometimes the original name, chosen long ago, no longer fits and it’s time to rebrand. Rebranding a company is not just a superficial exercise; this strategic move can redefine your business, energize your team, and reshape your future.  Steve Jobs, a master at communication, understood that a brand is more than a name or logo—it’s a story, a purpose, a promise, and the right name can make or break a brand. After all, the man turned a company named after a fruit into one of the most successful brands in the world. Here is some guidance on when to rebrand and the steps to make a rebrand successful, with inspiration from Steve Jobs.   When to rebrand  So, when is it time to rebrand? Maybe your brand no longer reflects who you are or what you stand for. If your company has evolved—expanding into new markets, adopting new technologies, or shifting its mission—your brand must evolve too. Just as Jobs famously redefined Apple’s purpose to focus on innovation and simplicity, you must ensure your brand reflects where you’re headed, not where you’ve been.   Perhaps your brand is facing increased competition. If customers can’t tell the difference between you and your competitors, it’s time to stand out. A rebrand can help clarify what makes your business unique and why it matters. And most common, you are merging or acquiring another company. Mergers and acquisitions often demand a new identity that reflects the combined strengths of the entities involved—an opportunity to tell a fresh story.   Once a decision has been made to rebrand, here are five steps for success.  1. Tell the story first   We are all wired for story. When someone says, “I have a story to tell you,” we lean in. So the first step is to tell the story of the rebrand with emphasis on the benefits to the audiences. Why you are changing is a good start, but what does this mean for your customers? Craft a narrative that resonates emotionally and aligns with your audience’s needs. As Jobs said, “People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.” Anchor your rebrand in a strong “why.” And an even stronger what!  2. Write your future headlines  Imagine the article you want to see in The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times about your brand. What would they say about your rebrand? This exercise will clarify your vision and guide all creative efforts. While this sounds simple, the strategic exercise can be your compass as you prepare your creative and launch activities.  Take a recent Lexicon name, Lucid Motors. The company’s mission statement expresses that “through technology, we create exceptional experiences to drive the world forward.” For this assignment, the client was looking for a name that would capture that notion while setting itself apart from any other auto brand. The name “Lucid” achieves this by working on our imagination, moving us from the literal meaning “clear-headed” to “exceptionally efficient brain power” to “exceptionally efficient battery power.” While this is going on in the intellectual realm, we experience the shock of the name’s unexpectedness in its category. Of course, shock by itself is not enough. As we see, the name also moves us from the literal meaning of lucid to one that fits the character of the car.   3. Focus on the unexpected and emotion.  Humans like to think of themselves as rational animals, but it comes as no news to marketers that we are motivated to a greater extent by emotions. Logic brings us to conclusions; emotion brings us to action. Whether we are creating a poem or a new brand name, we won’t get very far if we treat the task as an engineering exercise. True, names are formed by putting together parts, just as poems are put together with rhythmic patterns and with rhyming lines, but that totally misses what is essential to a name’s success or a poem’s success. Consider Microsoft and Apple as names. One is far more mechanical, and the other much more effective at creating the beginning of an experience. While both companies are tremendously successful, there is no question that Apple has the stronger, more emotional experience. What is that worth?  4. Identify your audience and speak directly to each group   Different stakeholders care about different things. Employees need inspiration; investors need confidence; customers need clarity on what’s in it for them. Break down these audiences and craft tailored messages for each group.  Identifying the audience groups can be challenging. While the first layer is obvious—customers, employees, investors, and analysts—all these audiences are easy to find and message. However, what is often overlooked is the individuals in those audiences who can more positively influence the rebrand. It may be a particular journalist, or a few select employees. Once you have identified these influencers, develop more relevant conversations that help them understand the rebrand.  5. Plan for longevity   A successful launch must be roadmapped with events and reminders over a 9-18 month timeline. It is much more than simply reannouncing the name change; it becomes an opportunity to build stronger relationships with the audiences that matter most to your brand. Consistency builds trust. Plan events and marketing efforts over a longer timeframe to reinforce your new identity. For example, company or industry conferences are excellent venues to reinforce the change and show where the company is headed. Any event must be viewed as an opportunity to strengthen the reasons for the rebrand.  Steve Jobs approached branding with clarity, simplicity, and a relentless focus on storytelling and user experience. He didn’t just change Apple’s logo—he transformed its identity by aligning every touchpoint with its purpose: empowering individuals through technology. By following these principles, you can ensure that your rebrand isn’t just a name change but a strategic leap forward that captures attention, inspires loyalty, and drives growth. As Jobs might say, “Think different.”  David Placek is founder and CEO of Lexicon Branding. 

The European Commission is coming for “SkinnyTok.” EU regulators are investigating a recent wave of social media videos that promote extreme thinness and “tough love” weight-loss advice, assessing whether TikTok is doing enough to protect children online, per Politico. France’s minister for digital media, Clara Chappaz, recently reported #SkinnyTok to both the French media regulator Arcom and the EU. “These videos promote extreme thinness. Protecting minors online is one of my priorities,” Chappaz said in a TikTok video posted Friday. @clara.chappaz Et si on parlait plutôt de #StrongTok ? S’aimer, commence par se respecter. Ces modèles d’extrême maigreur peuvent faire beaucoup de mal. #skinnytok #fyp ♬ son original – clara.chappaz Arcom told Politico it is collaborating with the European Commission to examine the trend “given the public health risk” it may pose. A Commission spokesperson also confirmed to Politico that it is “aware of the issue” and “ready to cooperate.” This comes alongside an ongoing EU investigation into TikTok’s algorithm and its impact on minors. The Commission is already looking into how the platform promotes content related to eating disorders—suggesting that further action may soon follow. Although the investigation is still in its early stages, discussions with TikTok are underway. The platform’s community guidelines claim it does “not allow showing or promoting disordered eating and dangerous weight loss behaviors.” Still, content that “shows or promotes potentially harmful weight management” is permitted for users over 18 and is excluded from the For You feed. Fast Company has reached out to TikTok for comment. Search “SkinnyTok” on TikTok, and the first thing you’ll see is a platform-generated message stating, “You are more than your weight.” Tap it, and you’ll find links to resources for disordered eating support, including the National Eating Disorder Association. But once you move past that well-meaning message, you’re hit with thousands of videos promoting restrictive eating, body checks, and before-and-after transformations. “Unhinged skinny advice,” one post reads. Another declares: “Being skinny is an outfit.” And, of course, the old favorite: “Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.” Weight-loss and pro-anorexia communities have long thrived on social media—just ask anyone who used Tumblr in the 2010s. In recent years, this kind of content has surged on TikTok, coinciding with the rise of GLP-1 medications. Many credit these drugs with pushing back against body positivity and ushering in a resurgence of thinness as the ideal. The effects aren’t just digital. According to a recent report by Trilliant Health, eating-disorder-related health visits among those youths younger than 17 have more than doubled in the past five years. From 2018 to mid-2022, these visits rose by 107.4%, with visits related to anorexia nervosa increasing 129.26%. In 2021, a report revealed that Instagram had failed to protect vulnerable users from pro-anorexia content. Let’s hope TikTok learns from those mistakes.

The death of Pope Francis has been announced by the Vatican. I first met the late Pope Francis at the Vatican after a conference called Saving Our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth in July 2018. My colleagues and I sensed something momentous was happening at the heart of the church. At that time, I was helping to set up the new Laudato Si’ Research Institute at the Jesuit Hall at the University of Oxford. This institute is named after the pope’s 2015 encyclical (a letter to bishops outlining church policy) on climate change. Its mission is rooted in the pope’s religiously inspired vision of integral ecology—a multidisciplinary approach that addresses social and ecological issues of equality and climate breakdown. Originating from Argentina, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, witnessed firsthand the destruction of the Amazon and the plight of South America’s poorest communities. His concern for justice for vulnerable communities and protection of the planet go hand in hand with his religious leadership. In his first papal letter, Laudato Si’, he called for all people, not just Catholics, to pay more attention to the frailty of both our planet and its people. What we need is no less than a cultural revolution, he wrote. As a theologian, I recognise that he inspired significant change in three key ways. 1. At global climate summits It’s no coincidence that Pope Francis released Laudato Si’ at a crucial moment in 2015 prior to the U.N. climate summit, Cop21, in Paris. A follow-up exhortation, or official statement, Laudate Deum, was released in October 2023, just before another U.N. climate summit, Cop28 in Dubai. Did the decisions at these global meetings shift because of the influence of Pope Francis? Potentially, yes. In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis showed both encouragement and some frustration about the achievements of international agreements so far. He berated the weakness of international politics and believes that Cop21 represented a “significant moment” because the agreement involved everyone. After Cop21, he pointed out how most nations had failed to implement the Paris agreement which called for limiting the global temperature rise in this century to below 2°C. He also called out the lack of monitoring of those commitments and subsequent political inertia. He tried his best to use his prominent position to hold power to account. Promoting a general moral awareness of the need to act in ecologically responsible ways, both in international politics and at the local level is something that previous popes, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also did. But, Pope Francis’s efforts went beyond that, by connecting much more broadly with grassroots movements. 2. By advocating for Indigenous people Cop28 marked the first time that close to 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Pope Francis’s interventions potentially helped shift the needle just a little in the desired direction. His emphasis on listening to Indigenous people may have influenced these gatherings. Compared with previous global climate summits, Cop28 arguably opened up the opportunity to listen to the voices of Indigenous people. However, Indigenous people were still disappointed by the outcomes of Cop28. Pope Francis’s lesser-known exhortation Querida Amazonia, which means “beloved Amazonia,” was published in February 2020. This exhortation resulted from his conversations with Amazonian communities and helped put Indigenous perspectives on the map. Those perspectives helped shape Catholic social teaching in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which means “all brothers and sisters,” published on October 3 2020. For many people living in developing countries where extractive industries such as oil and gas or mining are rife, destruction of land coincides with direct threats to life. Pope Francis advocated for Indigenous environmental defenders, many of whom have been inspired to act by their strong faith. For example, Father Marcelo Pérez, an Indigenous priest living in Mexico, was murdered by drug dealers just after saying mass on October 23, 2023, as part of the cost of defending the rights of his people and their land. While 196 environmental defenders were killed globally in 2023, Pope Francis continued to advocate on behalf of the most marginalised people as well as the environment. 3. By inspiring activism I’ve been speaking to religious climate activists from different church backgrounds in the U.K. as part of a multidisciplinary research project on religion, theology and climate change based at the University of Manchester. Most notably, when we asked more than 300 activists representing six different activist groups who most influenced them to get involved in climate action, 61% named Pope Francis as a key influencer. On a larger scale, Laudato Si’ gave rise to the Laudato Si’ movement, which coordinates climate activism across the globe. It has 900 Catholic organizations as well as 10,000 of what are known as Laudato Si’ “animators,” who are all ambassadors and leaders in their respective communities. Our institute’s ecclesial affiliate, Tomás Insua, based in Assisi, Italy, originally helped pioneer this global Laudato Si’ movement. We host a number of ecumenical gatherings which bring together people from different denominations and hopefully motivate churchgoers to think and act in a more climate-conscious way. Nobody knows who the next pope will be. Given the current turmoil in politics and shutting down of political will to address the climate emergency, we can only hope they will build on the legacy of Pope Francis and influence political change for the good, from the grassroots front line right up to the highest global ambitions. Celia Deane-Drummond is a professor of theology and director of Laudato Si’ Research Institute, Campion Hall at the University of Oxford. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you’re feeling detached from work and lacking motivation lately, know that you are not alone. Gallup’s most recent State of the Global Workplace report revealed that employee engagement fell to 21% in 2024, declining 2 points from the previous year. In the last 12 years, employee engagement has only fallen one other time, in 2020, due in part to COVID-19, the shift to working from home, and increased isolation. The report “offers what may be our last snapshot of a workforce on the cusp of seismic change,” Gallup CEO Jon Clifton said in the report. “We are witnessing a pivotal moment in the global workplace—one where engagement is faltering at the exact time artificial intelligence is transforming every industry in its path.” The most recent decline can be linked to disruptions in the workplace over the last five years, including layoffs, the introduction of AI across industries, ongoing friction around RTO policies, and more. Broken down by region, the U.S. and Canada tied with Latin America and the Caribbean for the region with the highest engaged employees—although the percentage was still low, with less than a third being engaged. The region also ranked at the top for employees experiencing daily stress. Managers need help The report found that the global decline in engagement centers around one particularly affected group: managers. Managers under 35 years old and female managers were the most affected, with engagement declining by 5 and 7 percentage points, respectively. The findings suggest that a lack of engagement from the top is trickling down to employees, and resulted in a loss of $438 billion in productivity to the world economy. Despite the declining rates, Gallup identified ways that employers can take action and lean toward a productivity boom: First, training managers on basic roles may boost engagement, with 44% of managers reporting a lack of training. Second, Gallup suggests teaching managers techniques for effective coaching, which could boost performance by up to 28%. Lastly, improving manager well-being should be prioritized, with manager development training and an encouraging peer working environment boosting well-being by up to 50%.

A bold new building at Spelman College in Atlanta is all about breaking down barriers. Designed by the architecture firm Studio Gang, the Center for Innovation and the Arts is the new home for collaboration between students of science, technology, art, and performance at the historically Black women’s liberal arts college. It will provide a new space where Spelman’s programs in dance, documentary filmmaking, photography, theater and performance, and music can tap into emerging technologies from the worlds of science and computer science. Studio Gang founder, Jeanne Gang, says the primary goals of the project were to help the college better connect its programs and events with the broader community, and to help its robust arts and science programs have more opportunity to overlap and intersect. “Our job was to make sure that there’s fluid connections between them,” Gang says. [Photo: ©Tom Harris/courtesy Studio Gang] The four-story building is a mashup of labs, studios, and collaboration areas, with a publicly accessible performance hall on the ground floor, and college-only learning spaces above. There are design spaces, a recording studio, galleries, faculty offices, and a tech-filled Innovation Lab for experimentation and prototyping. [Photo: ©Tom Harris/courtesy Studio Gang] All this is built around a central atrium that’s lit from above by a large skylight and either visibly or physically accessible from nearly every other space in the building. This central space, known as the Forum, is meant to be used for events, gatherings, exhibitions, and, most often, design critiques for students studying a range of creative disciplines.   [Photo: courtesy Studio Gang] “Even if you’re not walking right through the middle of the crit space, you’re always circulating around it,” Gang says. “So it’s a way of giving character to this space where these interactions happen.” [Photo: courtesy Studio Gang] Giving so much of the building over to a central atrium was a decision informed by Gang’s own design school experience, as a student, as a professor, and as a seasoned designer with several university buildings in her firm’s portfolio. “People are comfortable staying in their silos,” she says. “How can you make it natural for people that are from different disciplines to interact?” That thinking extends to Spelman’s expansion beyond its campus gates. Located directly adjacent to the campus, the Center for Innovation and the Arts was intended from the start to be a way for the college to spread its impact past its historical edge. After the project had to pause for a few years during the pandemic, this aspiration felt even more relevant. Gang says that during the early research her firm did for this project, they found a smattering of small art galleries in the surrounding Westside neighborhood. By the time the project picked back up a few years ago, those had grown and more had followed. “It has really developed into a more full neighborhood,” she says. “It made sense to us for this project to be a center.” [Photo: courtesy Studio Gang] It also stands out. The 84,000-square-foot building is a large square peeking out through the neighborhood’s tree cover, and bordering on a popular public plaza. Gang says the building was designed to counter Atlanta’s heat, with its upper floors forming a shaded canopy over the ground floor, creating what she calls a “porch-like” feeling. [Photo: ©Tom Harris/courtesy Studio Gang] The rest of the building is wrapped with a slitted facade of sun shades that resemble a woven basket—a notable departure from the traditional brick buildings that make up much of Spelman’s campus. The baffles are specifically tuned to block sunlight and glare from each part of the building, with a tighter weave on the south and southwest. “They’re very functional but also makes it feel more friendly,” Gang says. “It’s not a hard exterior of solid brick, and this lets it be more in the environment, breathing.” All of which helps the building foster connections with the surrounding neighborhood. But the main users will be the students of the college, and Gang says the fluidity of the spaces inside were essential elements of designing a building so focused on collaboration and innovation. “The building creates the relationships that you’re going to have with other people, other creators, and your own work,” she says, “so it’s really important to get it right.”

Leo Robitschek says he loves gin-based martinis and negronis. Unfortunately, they don’t always love him back. “After two, that decision to have a third is usually a tricky one,” says Robitschek, who has worked in the liquor industry for more than two decades, including serving as a bar director for Manhattan hot spots Eleven Madison Park and the NoMad Hotel. To lessen the pain after a boozy night out, Robitschek joined forces with another bartender, Nick Strangeway, and the founder of the sparkling beverage brand Dry Soda, Sharelle Klaus, to launch Second Sip Gin. The London dry gin is 20% alcohol by volume (ABV), roughly half the level of most gins, and was formulated over the course of six months as “somewhere between Beefeater and Tanqueray” gins. Second Sip has a juniper forward flavor, along with angelica root, coriander, bitter orange, and licorice, so it can retain an array of botanicals that gin is known for. [Photo: Second Sip Gin] “Two martinis are better than one,” says Robitschek. “But hopefully, there’s no regrets in the morning.” The rise of mindful drinking Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic led to a spike in alcohol consumption as Americans were stuck at home with little to do. After life returned to normal, many consumers sought to reset their relationship by participating in Dry January—avoiding booze for the full month—and giving nonalcoholic beverages a try. All this coincided with the rise of Gen Z into legal drinking age, a generation that’s drinking less than other young people before them. But industry data shows that a vast majority of adults that consume nonalcoholic drinks aren’t exactly sober. More than 90% drink alcohol, too. And often, they will alternate between alcohol and N/A brands within the same evening, a social concept called “zebra striping.”  “That idea of zebra striping and the consumer having two options results in this low alcohol space in the middle,” says Kaleigh Theriault, associate director of beverage alcohol thought leadership at research firm NIQ. “They can trust that the product is going to be moderate for them and they don’t have to be as conscious about making a decision between a non-alc and a regular ABV [alcohol by volume].” Lower alcohol sales total nearly $3.6 billion annually in U.S. grocery, liquor, convenience, and other retailers tracked by NIQ, but the category is also evolving differently across beer, wine, and spirits. Within beer, there has been less appetite for low-strength alternatives because major brands like Miller Lite and Coors Light are already naturally low in alcoholic content and the N/A brands that have emerged, led by Heineken 0.0 and Athletic Brewing, taste similar to their full-strength cousins. Redefining the buzz Fabian Clark says he enjoys N/A beers, but when he worked in hospitality and ran a restaurant in London, he consistently declined to stock Seedlip and other N/A spirits he was pitched. “For me, I felt they didn’t deliver on the flavor that I was looking for,” says Clark.  [Photo: Quarter Proof] After his restaurant shut down due to COVID, Clark cofounded Quarter Proof in 2022, launching with a gin and later a tequila and vodka that all contain 15% ABV, a level he says allows the startup to deliver spirits that retain a similar flavor profile to the higher proof competitors. “They’re not looking to abstain, they’re looking to moderate,” Clark says of the shifting consumer mindset. “And we feel that we offer seamless moderation. As we like to say, ‘All of the buzz, none of the blur.’” Stateside, Quarter Proof is only sold in bars and restaurants in New York and Miami, but Clark is in talks with a national distributor to bring the brand to additional markets. Clark also intends to move to the U.S. before the end of the year to have a more active in-person role building up Quarter Proof.  Brandon Joldersma, the CEO of N/A wine brand Surely, says that the dealcoholization techniques changed the flavor profile too much for some consumers. “You really want to taste as similar as possible,” says Joldersma. “It’s just much more difficult to do with wine than it is for beer.”  [Photo: Arlow] With that in mind, he launched the low-alcohol wine brand Arlow last year, with varietals including sauvignon blanc, rosé, and cabernet sauvignon, all with a 6.5% ABV and fewer calories and sugar than the full-strength wines. The brand is sold online in nearly all states and has scored wholesale distribution in New York as a test market. A category without clear rules NIQ’s Theriault says there’s no set guidelines for lower proof alcohols and thus the ranges for each category aren’t yet settled. Generally, NIQ’s unofficial definitions settle on beers under 4% ABV, and most wines under 10% and spirits below 30%. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for upstarts like Arlow and Quarter Proof.  “ABV math is something that consumers don’t necessarily do when at the shelf making a purchase,” says Theriault. “And probably not while ordering a drink while at a bar.” Beyond explaining the claims about ABV and better-for-you proposition for Arlow, Joldersma says he’s fielded questions like if Arlow adds water to dilute it (they don’t). “This is a brand new category that we are introducing and there’s some education that comes with that,” says Joldersma. Some say Americans are finally playing catch-up by embracing mid-strength cocktails like the aperol and hugo spritzes. “That lighter daytime drinking moment has always been part of European culture,” says Emma Fox, global VP for St-Germain elderflower liqueur and Martini vermouth. [Photo: St-Germain] Fox estimates that globally, the aperitif and N/A-low alcohol segment is worth $11 billion and projected to grow 6% over the next four years. Google Search volume for the hugo spritz, made with St-Germain, prosecco, and mint, spiked by 130% in 2024 from the prior year and saw content on TikTok more than triple. St-Germain launched a global ad campaign with actress Sophie Turner last year to bolster the hugo spritz during the summer, when the cocktail tends to be more popular. To bolster popularity during the colder months, the French liqueur brand has also developed après-ski pop-ups at ski resorts. A new standard for bar menus Proof Creative, which conceptualizes cocktails menus for luxury hotel clients like the Four Seasons and Ritz-Carlton, anticipates menus will soon be engineered to offer N/A, low ABV, and full strength options across every beverage category. Bobby Carey, creative director for bar consultancy Proof Creative, says the lower-proof brands are also emerging in response to some consumer pushback that the N/A brands were being sold at lofty price points on par with the full strength spirits and wines. “Why am I paying so much for a nonalcoholic drink?,” asks Carey, explaining a common gripe he’s witnessed. “If you can turn around and say, ‘This is still alcohol. It’s still giving you the same flavor.’ That’s a more winning proposition.”

European Union watchdogs fined Apple and Meta hundreds of millions of euros Wednesday as they stepped up enforcement of the 27-nation bloc’s digital competition rules.The European Commission imposed a 500 million euro ($571 million) fine on Apple for preventing app makers from pointing users to cheaper options outside its App Store.The commission, which is the EU’s executive arm, also fined Meta Platforms 200 million euros because it forced Facebook and Instagram users to choose between seeing ads or paying to avoid them.The punishments were smaller than the blockbuster multibillion-euro fines that the commission has previously slapped on Big Tech companies in antitrust cases.Apple and Meta have to comply with the decisions within 60 days or risk unspecified “periodic penalty payments,” the commission said.The decisions were expected to come in March, but officials apparently held off amid an escalating trans-Atlantic trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly complained about regulations from Brussels affecting American companies.The penalties were issued under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, also known as the DMA. It’s a sweeping rulebook that amounts to a set of do’s and don’ts designed to give consumers and businesses more choice and prevent Big Tech “gatekeepers” from cornering digital markets.The DMA seeks to ensure “that citizens have full control over when and how their data is used online, and businesses can freely communicate with their own customers,” Henna Virkkunen, the commission’s executive vice-president for tech sovereignty, said in a statement.“The decisions adopted today find that both Apple and Meta have taken away this free choice from their users and are required to change their behavior,” Virkkunen said.Both companies indicated they would appeal.Apple accused the commission of “unfairly targeting” the iPhone maker, and said it “continues to move the goal posts” despite the company’s efforts to comply with the rules.Meta Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan said in a statement that the “Commission is attempting to handicap successful American businesses while allowing Chinese and European companies to operate under different standards.”In the App Store case, the Commission had accused the iPhone maker of imposing unfair rules preventing app developers from freely steering consumers to other channels.Among the DMA’s provisions are requirements to let developers inform customers of cheaper purchasing options and direct them to those offers.The commission said it ordered Apple to remove technical and commercial restrictions that prevent developers from steering users to other channels, and to end “non-compliant” conduct.Apple said it has “spent hundreds of thousands of engineering hours and made dozens of changes to comply with this law, none of which our users have asked for.”“Despite countless meetings, the Commission continues to move the goal posts every step of the way,” the company said.The EU’s Meta investigation centered on the company’s strategy to comply with strict European data privacy rules by giving users the option of paying for ad-free versions of Facebook and Instagram.Users could pay at least 10 euros ($11) a month to avoid being targeted by ads based on their personal data. The U.S. tech giant rolled out the option after the European Union’s top court ruled Meta must first get consent before showing ads to users, in a decision that threatened its business model of tailoring ads based on individual users’ online interests and digital activity.Regulators took issue with Meta’s model, saying it doesn’t allow users to exercise their right to “freely consent” to allowing their personal data from its various services, which also including Facebook Marketplace, WhatsApp, and Messenger, to be combined for personalized ads.Meta rolled out a third option in November giving Facebook and Instagram users in Europe the option to see fewer personalized ads if they don’t want to pay for an ad-free subscription. The commission said it’s “currently assessing” this option and continues to hold talks with Meta, and has asked the company to provide evidence of the new option’s impact.“This isn’t just about a fine; the Commission forcing us to change our business model effectively imposes a multi-billion-dollar tariff on Meta while requiring us to offer an inferior service,” Kaplan said. “And by unfairly restricting personalized advertising the European Commission is also hurting European businesses and economies.” —Kelvin Chan, AP Business Writer

Harmful bleaching of the world’s coral has grown to include 84% of the ocean’s reefs in the most intense event of its kind in recorded history, the International Coral Reef Initiative announced Wednesday.It’s the fourth global bleaching event since 1998, and has now surpassed bleaching from 2014-17 that hit some two-thirds of reefs, said the ICRI, a mix of more than 100 governments, non-governmental organizations and others. And it’s not clear when the current crisis, which began in 2023 and is blamed on warming oceans, will end.“We may never see the heat stress that causes bleaching dropping below the threshold that triggers a global event,” said Mark Eakin, executive secretary for the International Coral Reef Society and retired coral monitoring chief for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.“We’re looking at something that’s completely changing the face of our planet and the ability of our oceans to sustain lives and livelihoods,” Eakin said.Last year was Earth’s hottest year on record, and much of that is going into oceans. The average annual sea surface temperature of oceans away from the poles was a record 20.87 degrees Celsius (69.57 degrees Fahrenheit).That’s deadly to corals, which are key to seafood production, tourism and protecting coastlines from erosion and storms. Coral reefs are sometimes dubbed “rainforests of the sea” because they support high levels of biodiversity—approximately 25% of all marine species can be found in, on and around coral reefs.Coral get their bright colors from the colorful algae that live inside them and are a food source for the corals. Prolonged warmth causes the algae to release toxic compounds, and the coral eject them. A stark white skeleton is left behind, and the weakened coral is at heightened risk of dying.The bleaching event has been so severe that NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program has had to add levels to its bleaching alert scale to account for the growing risk of coral death.Efforts are underway to conserve and restore coral. One Dutch lab has worked with coral fragments, including some taken from off the coast of the Seychelles, to propagate them in a zoo so that they might be used someday to repopulate wild coral reefs if needed. Other projects, including one off Florida, have worked to rescue corals endangered by high heat and nurse them back to health before returning them to the ocean.But scientists say it’s essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that warm the planet, such as carbon dioxide and methane.“The best way to protect coral reefs is to address the root cause of climate change. And that means reducing the human emissions that are mostly from burning of fossil fuels . . . everything else is looking more like a Band-Aid rather than a solution,” Eakin said.“I think people really need to recognize what they’re doing . . . inaction is the kiss of death for coral reefs,” said Melanie McField, co-chair of the Caribbean Steering Committee for the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, a network of scientists that monitors reefs throughout the world.The group’s update comes as President Donald Trump has moved aggressively in his second term to boost fossil fuels and roll back clean energy programs, which he says is necessary for economic growth.“We’ve got a government right now that is working very hard to destroy all of these ecosystems . . . removing these protections is going to have devastating consequences,” Eakin said. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. —Isabella O’Malley, Associated Press

Thanksgiving may not arrive until November, but you wouldn’t know it from perusing Donald Trump’s social media feeds. He’s been giving thanks quite a lot lately. “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” is how the president has been closing some of his recent online dispatches. It’s a weirdly stiff expression. It carries the bureaucratic heft of an HR email about which snacks are now forbidden in the break room, or that of a lawyer signing off an email about a pressing document that won’t e-sign itself. Given the source, though, it feels more like the boss reading all of America the riot act. At least 10 of Trump’s Truth Social posts in the past two months have ended this way, alternately confounding and delighting those who come upon them. He’s deployed the idiom so much, in fact, and in such unusual contexts, it’s now found a second life as a viral meme and multipurpose catchphrase.  me: *posts the longest, least-disciplined paragraph of rambling bullshit you have ever seen in your life* also me: "thank you for your attention to this matter"— e.w. niedermeyer (@niedermeyer.online) April 17, 2025 at 12:53 PM Based on the lack of respect you people have shown me, I am hereby raising the Tariff charge on my free mix videos to 125%, effective immediately.Thank you for your attention to this matter! pic.twitter.com/UHNoyDPZKW— DJ Mek (@DeeJayMek) April 10, 2025 Although Trump’s fondness for the expression, abbreviated from here on out as TYFYATTM, goes back at least as far as a 2019 Twitter rant about China, he’s only recently cemented it as a Trumpism. There’s no obvious rhyme or reason for which posts he chooses to grace with a TYFYATTM. It’s popped up when Trump makes an announcement (like the extension of TikTok’s grace period to find a new buyer), when he makes an ultimatum (like the demand for an apology from Maine Governor Janet Mills, which went unrequited), and when he makes his scathing opinion known about a person, place, or thing (like he did most recently in an April 16 screed about Harvard).  The purpose of “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” is open to interpretation, but there are hints in Trump’s posts about what he might mean by it.  “Please let this notification serve to represent that the Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol, and all other Law Enforcement Agencies within our Country have been so notified,” he wrote in a Truth Social post in March about Venezuela, before adding a TYFYATTM. Perhaps the same disclaimer is implied for all other posts that end this way, a reminder that if Trump felt compelled to do so, he could cancel a company’s contract via tweet, as he once did with Boeing. The cold formality of TYFYATTM seems meant to distinguish one of Trump’s many daily dispatches as Official Business, something to be considered with utmost seriousness. It doesn’t always get the job done. In one instance, Trump dropped a TYFYATTM after merely mentioning that he’d had a conversation with Canadian PM Mark Carney, perhaps out of habit. (Although it’s certainly possible that Trump’s team uses the strange phrase when posting on his behalf, now that it’s become a signature line.) TYFYATTM fuses together formality with urgency, conveying that something must be done! Whether he intends to or not, by addressing readers directly, Trump involves them. TYFYATTM brings them into breaking news, like when late-night talk show hosts precede a monologue joke with, “Did you hear about this?” Some readers might even feel deputized by the phrase—even if all they have to do is hate Harvard a little more than before. On the other hand, Trump may just understand that people like being thanked—even when they haven’t done anything. In any case, whether through marketing prowess or sheer force of will and repetition, Trump has quickly lodged his new catchphrase within the cultural vernacular. People on X and Bluesky have been using it as a goofy mock-signoff for decidedly unofficial proclamations. QUITE ENJOYED THIS BUILDING’S PROPORTIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! pic.twitter.com/BPDxcTC69j— Harry Wilkin$ (@hs_wilkins) April 10, 2025 Hard pass. Thank you for your attention to this matter.— Jen Jennings (@jenjennings.bsky.social) 2025-04-21T15:27:20.318Z My prices will continue to be whatever I feel like charging whenever I feel like charging it.Thank you for your attention in this matter.All hail The Queen of Rats.— Tengushee (@Tengushee) April 15, 2025 And of course, plenty of others have been using it just to mock the president outright. My understanding is that while we were not clear on OpSec over the weekend, we are now. Thank you for your attention to this matter.— Schnorkles O'Bork (@schnorkles.bsky.social) 2025-04-21T14:43:33.665Z [ the dumbest shit you've ever read in your life ] Thank you for your attention to this matter!— Ian Boudreau (@ianboudreau.com) 2025-04-16T17:29:16.132Z Thank you for your attention to this matter!— Mark Harris (@markharris.bsky.social) 2025-04-21T20:47:30.278Z During Trump’s first term, he minted a Duolingo lesson’s worth of catchphrases on Twitter that were similarly mocked and imitated into ubiquity. Considering it is somehow still less than 100 days into round two, there are likely many such cases still to come. Unfortunately for Trump, he doesn’t get any originality points for “Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Snarky expressions of gratitude invoking the president are kind of old hat by now. (Thanks, Obama!)

Global shares mostly rose Wednesday, with markets showing relief after President Donald Trump indicated he won’t dismiss the head of the U.S. Federal Reserve.France’s CAC 40 jumped 2.1% in early trading to 7,480.99, while Germany’s DAX rose 2.5% to 21,820.14. Britain’s FTSE 100 gained 1.6% to 8,461.24. U.S. shares were set to drift higher with Dow futures up 1.5% at 39,960.00. S&P 500 futures rose 2.0% to 5,421.75.In Asia, Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 gained 1.9% to finish at 34,868.63. Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 surged 1.3% to 7,920.50. South Korea’s Kospi gained 1.6% to 2,525.56. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng added 2.4% to 222,072.62, while the Shanghai Composite edged down 0.1% to 3,296.36.Trump had previously said he could fire Fed chair Jerome Powell after the Fed paused cuts to short-term interest rates. But Trump told reporters Tuesday, “I have no intention of firing him.”Investors were also cheered by comments from U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a Tuesday speech. He said the ongoing tariffs showdown with China is unsustainable and he expects a “de-escalation” in the trade war.“Of course, markets will continue to listen out for the latest White House rhetoric on tariffs and any hints of upcoming trade deals. As such, market direction will more likely than not continue to be dictated by Trump’s latest whims regarding tariffs and trade,” said Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade.The only prediction many Wall Street strategists are willing to make is that financial markets will likely continue to veer up and down as hopes rise and fall that Trump may negotiate deals with other countries to lower his tariffs. If no such deals come quickly enough, many investors expect the economy to fall into a recession.The International Monetary Fund on Tuesday slashed its forecast for global economic growth this year to 2.8%, down from 3.3%. A suite of better-than-expected profit reports from big U.S. companies, meanwhile, helped drive U.S. stocks higher.Also helping market sentiment was the announcement from Elon Musk that he will spend less time in Washington and more time running Tesla after his electric vehicle company reported a big drop in profits. Its results have been hurt by vandalism, widespread protests and calls for a consumer boycott amid a backlash to Musk’s oversight of cost-cutting efforts for the U.S. government.Tesla reported earnings after U.S. trading closed. Tesla’s quarterly profits fell from $1.39 billion to $409 million, far below analyst estimates.In energy trading, benchmark U.S. crude added 80 cents to $64.47 a barrel. Brent crude, the international standard added 81 cents to $68.25 a barrel.In currency trading, the U.S. dollar declined to 141.87 Japanese yen from 142.37 yen. The euro cost $1.1390, up from $1.1379. _AP Business Writer Stan Choe contributed. —Yuri Kageyama, AP Business Writer

Last month, a food research organization called Nectar released an expansive set of findings from taste tests that rated plant-based meat alternatives alongside actual meat. One bit of information stood out: In terms of taste, 54% of people on average found 20 vegan products (such as burgers, nuggets, and sausages) from 13 brands (including Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and Gardein) to taste as good as or better than analogous conventional meat products. This should probably be good news for those of us who are concerned about the environment, public health, and animal welfare.  But the flipside of this discovery is that even though plant-based meat is starting to taste just as good as (and in some cases better than) animal meat, most people aren’t changing their purchasing habits accordingly. If “taste is king,” it doesn’t deserve the crown—and ignoring this reality will doom alt protein to irrelevance. For many decades now, people in a whole array of fields have been on a mad mission to figure out how to get people to eat less meat. It has long been clear that education alone about the problems with factory farming isn’t enough to get people to change their behavior. Certainly shaming people, demanding total lifestyle overhaul, and expecting perfection are tactics that don’t work—that’s why I cofounded the Reducetarian Foundation, because encouraging incremental change actually does work. But even that has its limits. Indeed, I have always believed that a more pragmatic approach—offering people better options in the marketplace—is ultimately one of the most effective ways to drive change. Specifically, I figured that the pillars of price, convenience, and especially taste were a sort of holy grail for the alt-meat industry. We can’t reasonably expect people to change their eating habits unless and until the more ethical, environmentally friendly, and healthy option is also the more affordable, convenient, and delicious choice. Interestingly, we’ve reached a point where, at least in the case of some products, plant-based meat is indeed as tasty as (or, to some people, even tastier than) real meat. Prices are nearing parity (though aren’t quite there yet) and in some cases are even cheaper than animal meat. And plant-based meat is easier than ever to find, with major brands like Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat stocked in mainstream supermarkets and fast food chains like Burger King and Starbucks offering alt-meat options. Plant-based meat may not have totally surpassed regular meat in the price-taste-convenience (PTC) trifecta, but compelling data shows that we’re closer than ever. And yet, we’ve yet to see a real revolution in consumer habits. Plant-based meat still only makes up about 1% of total retail meat sales. We’re still a nation of meat eaters, eating more than 225 pounds of meat per year (and climbing), making us one the biggest meat-eating nations in the world. Suffice it to say, the scales aren’t tipping—at least not to the degree we’d expect to see if the so-called “PTC hypothesis” were wholly true.  It turns out that in 2023, researcher Jacob Peacock, of the think tank Rethink Priorities, actually put the PTC hypothesis to the test, reviewing existing research on plant-based meat and consumer behavior. His conclusion? PTC doesn’t explain people’s choices. At least, not as comprehensively as some of us believed it would. Peacock explains some major problems with collecting good data on consumer choices—like not enough real-world research, unreliable self-reports, and missing control groups. He also reviews many studies showing that people still prefer animal meat over plant-based meat, even when price and convenience aren’t issues and they say the taste is similar. Even in hypothetical situations, people tend to report that they’d still prefer real meal to alt-meat, regardless if it’s indistinguishable in terms of price, taste, and convenience.  One of Peacock’s conclusions is that we’ve been underestimating the importance of social and psychological factors. Diet, especially when it comes to meat consumption, is highly politicized. Conservative-leaning people are likely to be dissuaded by environmentally friendly messaging, and several Republican politicians have proposed legislation to keep the alt-meat industry out of their states. Meat is also gendered, being socially linked to masculinity. These ideas may be divorced from rationality, but people don’t always behave rationally—emotional, social, and psychological forces are at play, too. It comes as a bit of a blow to think that even if someone in the culinary or food tech spaces creates the most delicious burger the world has ever seen, and at an affordable price, most people will still go for regular old beef. One caveat to all this is that the Nectar study found there’s still room for improvement in taste even among the top performing products. For example, it reported that among those who preferred the plant-based products, they preferred them less strongly than those who preferred animal meat. In other words, the animal meat attracted more die-hard fans. This partially explains why some plant-based brands won a “Tasty Award,” in the language of Nectar, but not a Parity or Superiority Award, which is reserved for products that have an equal or much greater chance of being preferred. Still, the limitations of taste are clear. Given more than half of participants rated 20 plant-based meat products the same or better than animal-based meat, we’d expect plant-based meat sales to be a lot higher if taste primarily explained consumer behavior. As frustrating as it may be to champions of alt-meat, this is information we can use. Price, taste, and convenience are certainly factors in consumer choice (if smaller factors than we previously believed), and it can only help the sector—and thus, make a real difference in changing the way people eat—to make plant-based meat as tasty and cheap as possible. All of the time and resources going toward that have, likely, not been wasted.  But now, it’s clear we need to diversify our attention. We need researchers to delve into the more amorphous factors that drive people’s food choices, and we need marketers and educators to include them in their messaging. When someone chooses meat over plant-based alternatives, even when they acknowledge that the plant-based option tastes just as good, we need to find out why. We need to start gathering information so we can make a real effort to combat the psychological and social factors keeping people from switching to alternative meats. What is it that’s actually stopping them, and how can we remove or lessen those obstacles? Answers to these questions won’t come easy, but nothing worthwhile ever does.

In 2020, designer and brand strategist Kim Berlin got a call she was not expecting. Her small New York firm was invited to help create the visual identity of a new budget airline being formed from the bones of a former charter airline. The new airline, Avelo, would focus on bringing low-cost flights to underserved regional airports like those in Burbank, California, and New Haven, Connecticut. Berlin worked with the company to develop everything from its logo to its airplane livery to the clothes its flight attendants would wear. “It was actually a huge deal for me because I’m a one-person operation over here,” Berlin says. “I was selected to create an entire airline from scratch. It’s something that not even some of the largest design firms ever have the privilege of being able to do.” The bright and cheery design she created has won her numerous awards, including the American Graphic Design Award, and an honorable mention in Fast Company’s 2022 Innovation by Design Awards for graphic design. It’s become a kind of calling card project for Berlin and her firm. [Images: Avelo] But then the business behind the brand made a controversial decision that Berlin is still trying to wrap her head around. Earlier this month it was reported that Avelo had signed an agreement to begin operating charter deportation flights out of Arizona for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. It’s a process the Trump administration has already begun implementing with other partners, including the U.S. military. Some of these deportations have been conducted without the due process of law, a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court unanimously stated recently that targeted individuals must be granted time to contest their removal. Protesters in front of Tweed Airport in New Haven, Connecticut, on April 17, 2025 [Photo: Roy De La Cruz/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images] Avelo’s agreement to participate in these actions has prompted a backlash, including a growing petition to boycott the company. In a statement, Avelo CEO Andrew Levy defended the partnership. “We realize this is a sensitive and complicated topic,” he said, noting that the airline’s flights would be part of a “long-term charter program” with DHS that would help with expansion and protect jobs. Berlin learned about the partnership via a Google Alert she had set up to track the company. In contrast to previous alerts about positive news like route expansions or growing revenues, the ICE partnership came as a shock. “Historically I’ve been celebrating them all along and then this shows up and I’m like, oh my God,” she says. “It sounded so different from the initial objectives of the [company] when we started . . . five years ago.” These actions have put Berlin in the awkward position of being so closely connected to a brand that has done something she neither expected nor wanted. It’s forced a kind of reckoning over how she should respond: whether to distance herself from the brand and her own work on it, to look beyond the politics of the decision, or to find some other way of celebrating the work while also opposing the decision of the company she once served. “That is the question I have been chewing on ever since I found out about a week ago,” she says. Avelo’s involvement in the deportation effort came as a surprise to Berlin because her experience working with the company’s leaders was such a positive one. “I love everyone I worked with on this project,” she says, noting that the company’s founding effort was driven by community and idealism. “It was great. It was like the little guy for the little guy. Everybody was so family-oriented. Even through the design process, some of the families got involved. We were fielding comments from wives and children.” Avelo did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication. Berlin’s processing is ongoing—“I’m still circling,” she says—but she’s found herself leaning toward a set of principles she believes other designers may find helpful should they ever encounter a similar situation. “As designers we’ve got to recognize that these babies have a whole life of their own once they’re out in the world. And what our clients decide to do with the work is entirely their prerogative. That’s the way business works,” she says. “I also feel like now more than ever is a time when we need to ask whether the way business works is actually working for us.” The experience has led her to reevaluate how she will interact with clients going forward, allowing herself more time to decide whether to take on new projects. It’s also led her to a place of acceptance about what she can and can’t control. “I’m really proud of this work. And just because they’ve made a particular decision that I don’t necessarily agree with doesn’t necessarily mean that the work I’ve done has no value,” she says. “It was really a dream to do.” Her main piece of advice to designers is to not conflate one’s work with their identity. “You are not your projects,” she says. “If you did your best, then you did your best. Don’t let somebody else’s actions or decisions take that away from you.”

UnitedHealth Group spent nearly $1.7 million on security for its top executives in 2024, the healthcare conglomerate disclosed on Monday, months after the fatal shooting of senior executive Brian Thompson outside a Manhattan hotel in December. The company also paid $207,931 on behalf of certain family members of the executives to provide them with personal and home security services, it said. The security spending disclosures, absent from UnitedHealth’s previous annual filings, underscore how the December shooting is prompting companies to reassess the risk of targeted violence against top management. U.S. drugmakers Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly also increased spending on security for their top executives in 2024, regulatory filings showed last month. “We believe that these security services are appropriate and necessary given the risks associated with executive officer positions at the company,” UnitedHealth said in the filing. Brian Thompson, the former CEO of UnitedHealth Group’s insurance unit UnitedHealthcare, was shot dead on December 4 outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel where the company was holding an investor conference. The filing also showed UnitedHealth CEO Andrew Witty’s total compensation for 2024 was $26.3 million, compared with $23.5 million a year ago. The conglomerate spent $150,951 towards Witty’s security, while $926,989 was paid for Heather Cianfrocco, the CEO of the company’s health services unit Optum. Following Thompson’s murder, health insurers removed pictures of their executives from corporate websites. In January, organizers at a major San Francisco healthcare meeting increased security for attendees inside and outside the venue. In past years, healthcare and pharmaceutical companies have typically covered the use of private jets and provided limited security-related compensation, according to earlier filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. —Sriparna Roy, Reuters

The higher education community is pushing back against the Trump administration’s treatment of colleges and universities. On Tuesday, the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), a global membership organization, published a joint statement condemning the administration’s ongoing threats to withhold federal funding from colleges and universities.“We speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education,” the letter reads. “We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion,” it said, adding: “We must reject the coercive use of public research funding.” More than 170 university, college, and scholarly society presidents signed the letter, including those from the Ivy League institutions of Harvard, Brown, and Princeton, as well as heads of liberal arts schools and community colleges.The statement comes as tensions between higher education institutions and the current administration have been heating up in recent weeks. On Monday, Harvard University said it filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging Trump’s decision to freeze $2.2 billion in funding was unlawful. “Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world,” Harvard President Alan Garber said in a statement announcing the suit. “We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion.” In its complaint, Harvard accused the government of failing to follow procedures set by federal civil rights laws and said the government was attempting to “coerce and control” the university by denying necessary funding. The federal funding freeze came after Harvard refused to bend to the administration’s demands, which included giving the administration information on students who may be participating in political activism it disagrees with; banning masks on campus; and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end,” White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said in a statement on Monday, per CNN. “Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.” As the Trump administration has revoked student visas and detained students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses, which the administration has called antisemitic, the reaction from colleges and universities has differed broadly from school to school. While some institutions have stood fiercely behind their detained students, others have seemed to bow to Trump’s demands. Columbia University has expelled, suspended, and revoked the degrees of some students who had participated in political protests. However, Tuesday’s letter might be a sign of what’s to come, as it is the largest collective effort among university and college heads to push back against the administration thus far.

In April 2023, the New York State Board of Regents unanimously voted to prohibit mascots, team names, and logos with any connection to Indigenous peoples in public schools. This move was made to ratify a notice sent months before by the New York State Education Department to public schools to change any mascots depicting Native Americans that do not have explicit permission from local tribal leaders or face “removal of school officers and the withholding of state aid.”  Although dozens of schools began the process of changing mascots, school districts such as Massapequa stood fast. Eponymously named after the Massapequa tribe, the school district uses a “chief” mascot throughout the town and at Massapequa High School. The slogan “Once a Chief, always a Chief” can be often found on residents’ T-shirts and heard throughout the area.  In a letter sent by the Massapequa Board of Education to the New York State Board of Regents, the council stated that the mascot was “more than a symbol to Massapequa,” and stated that “we in Massapequa will not sit idly by while an unelected group of officials tries to remove our history.” However, according to JP O’Hare, a spokesman for the state’s Education Department, the Massapequa school district did not make an attempt to ask permission from local Indigenous leaders. “Disrespecting entire groups of people is wrong in any context, but especially in our schools, where all students should feel welcome and supported,” O’Hare said in an interview with the New York Times. Now, two years into the conflict, President Trump has added another wrench in the Board of Regents ruling. Taking to Truth Social on Monday, the president affirmed his support for the Massapequa Board of Education. “Forcing them to change the name, after all of these years, is ridiculous and, in actuality, an affront to our great Indian population,” Trump said. “By copy of this TRUTH, I am asking my highly capable Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to fight for the people of Massapequa on this very important issue.” Federal funding at stake in broader DEI fight So far, it is unclear what power McMahon may actually have to oppose state education law. Fast Company reached out to the Department of Education (DOE) for comment. Nevertheless, attention like this from the Trump administration should not be taken lightly. Earlier this month, Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools that have enacted what the administration considered to be unfair diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. In response to the president’s comments, the Massapequa School Board released a statement thanking Trump for speaking out, local media reported. “We are honored that President Trump has recognized our efforts and brought national attention to our cause. His support is a powerful affirmation of what we’re fighting for.” Fast Company was unable to reach the school board for further comment as its press mailbox was full and email requests bounced back. We also reached out to the New York State Education Department and the National Congress of American Indians. We will update this post if we hear back.

The Fast Company Impact Council is an invitation-only membership community of leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual dues for access to peer learning, thought leadership opportunities, events and more. There was a time when data centers were quietly built throughout the country…just another utility necessary to meet the need of businesses and consumers. Today, they’re bigger and more power hungry, and that’s drawing a new level of attention. So much so that, in a recent rezoning hearing attended by hundreds of residents, attendees expressed concerns about the proliferation of data and data centers.  Clearly, big data applications are driving the surge in the data center industry’s expansion today. But we started to wonder how much wasted data is out there and if consumers understand how they connect to data centers. Are people paying (increasingly high) fees to store waste? Do they understand it all lives in a physical, powered location? As a company, we are dogged about zero waste. We’re certainly not in the business of building virtual landfills.   Being curious, we set out to dig deeper, to understand how Americans see digital accumulation. Between January 21 and February 5, 2025, Compass Datacenters polled 1,005 Americans for their perspectives on digital accumulation. At the heart of the study was this question: Are we a nation of digital hoarders?  The results  We learned that few people connect the dots between “the cloud” and the physical infrastructure behind it. Nearly 60% of respondents claimed they use cloud storage, but only 23% recognized that as being a physical location.  While people said they do delete files on occasion, those occasions are few and far between. People are motivated to hit delete to keep their devices functioning; few exercise good digital hygiene as a matter of security. Respondents were quick to say they’re afraid of deleting something they might need later. One-third of respondents said the prospect of dealing with digital accumulation makes them feel overwhelmed, anxious, and stressed—so much so that 60% said they’d rather wash dishes than clean out digital files.  Further, there is an out of sight, out of mind mentality when it comes to digital files. It’s troubling to see younger generations buying their way out of practicing good digital hygiene. Nearly half (49%) of Gen Z and millennials polled say they pay for data storage. Of the Gen Z group:  48% pay $1-$20 each month  40% pay $20-$40 per month  11% pay $40-$60 monthly   Accounting for a 3% inflation rate, assuming a 25-year-old pays $20/month for data storage until the age of 85, they will spend $40,000 over their lifetime on digital storage.  Data retention in the workplace  This trend is not relegated to consumers. Studies indicate that less than 20% of large businesses have procedures for data retention or information governance.  Businesses can set the tone and be champions for better digital hygiene by prioritizing clear policies for data retention and digital storage and ensuring compliance for security and efficiency. Best practice in the business world is not unlike consumer guidance. You have to identify the types of data to retain, the file retention duration, and the appropriate storage methods. Discipline around stored data review can help identify which redundant or outdated information to eliminate, thereby reducing storage costs and minimizing digital clutter.  Additionally, leveraging encryption and secure access controls can protect sensitive data from unauthorized access and breaches. By adopting these best practices, companies can maintain a streamlined and secure digital environment supporting their operational needs and regulatory requirements.  The bottom line on digital waste  Digital waste is still waste. Just as a more orderly physical spaces fosters productivity and reduces stress, a more organized digital life can lead to greater efficiency and less anxiety. Taking small, consistent steps now to delete unused apps, unsubscribe from unnecessary emails, and regularly organize our files creates a more sustainable digital ecosystem.  We share other tips for creating disciplines about what to store and where, and how to integrate best practices into daily life at Delete Digital Dust Bunnies, a site highlighting this kind of Earth Day cleanup.  By recognizing the tangible impact of our digital lives and embracing the practice of digital decluttering, we can all contribute to a more sustainable digital future. Earth Day is a great time to swipe out the extraneous data and lighten the load, for us and for the future.  Chris Crosby is CEO of Compass Datacenters. 

Tesla has reached a potentially lethal moment in its history, and it isn’t solely due to CEO Elon Musk’s political radicalization. Years of design and technology stagnation have led to a languishing model line and outdated technology. Back in 2023, I wrote that the beleaguered carmaker should aspire to survive and become yet another car manufacturer. Now that objective feels more pressing—and distant—than ever. The company just announced a new quarter of abysmal vehicle sales. Tesla’s first quarter of 2025 was a disaster—a 71% decline in net income compared to the same quarter last year—except for a better-than-expected gross margin thanks to its energy business. Its EV sales cratered, with a 13% drop in relation to the previous quarter. Worse yet: The company would have posted a loss if it weren’t for the government’s zero-emission credits.  Predictably, Musk tried to distract from all of this with more of his usual empty promises about self-driving cabs and magical robots. During the Q1 financials conference call, he declared—with a faltering train of thought—that he remained optimistic about the future of the company. A future that is “based on a large number of autonomous cars and autonomous humanoid robots.” He said that he expects autonomy to start moving Tesla’s financial needle in mid-2026.  Musk also claimed Tesla’s humanoid robot Optimus will be working at Tesla’s factories by year’s end. “I feel confident we will make a million units per year in less than five years, maybe four years,” he said. Tesla will be the most valuable company in the world by far “if we execute well,” he declared after a pause. Then he said it will be “maybe as valuable as the next five companies combined.” Delay tactics Is anyone falling for all this bluster? I’m not. You shouldn’t either. Musk’s promises have a tendency to end in the graveyard of delusions, some of them literally buried, most delayed for many years.  During the Cybercab reveal in October 2024, he promised the two-seater with scissor doors and no steering wheel by 2026, a claim that was met with derision. Remember that he promised robotaxis for 2020. The company declared in its Q1 report that the Cybercab “is scheduled for volume production starting in 2026.”   That’s very unlikely to happen, as fully autonomous Tesla cars have not been approved anywhere, and they are far from going through the certification process needed for “volume” to happen. Waymo is still progressing slowly in its approval process and it’s years ahead of Tesla. “Full Self-Driving manages just 489 miles between disengagements, dwarfed by Waymo’s 17,311,” notes industry expert Ashok Elluswamy. To achieve human-level safety, analysts say, Tesla needs a 1,400x improvement. Which is why Musk’s claim of launching unsupervised Full Self-Driving (FSD) in June 2025 sounds so absurd. Tesla’s FSD currently remains a beta experiment linked to federal probes and crashes. Meanwhile, Volvo and Mercedes currently deploy safer autonomous tech made by Waymo, a company that already has self-driving cabs on the road.  Even if Musk could actually deliver on his Cybercab promise, Tesla’s internal analysis admitted Robotaxis would hemorrhage cash. According to a report by The Information, the company’s own executives warned Musk that the payback around FSD and Robotaxi would “be slow . . . very, very hard outside the U.S.” He ignored them. Instead, he canceled the Model 2—the alleged name for an affordable Tesla model—to chase the “geofenced 5mph Disneyland ride” of Robotaxis, as critic Dan O’Dowd mocked. The company is now implicitly recognizing it made a mistake in its first quarter financial report, saying that “more affordable options are as critical as ever.” No wonder its top designers and engineers are leaving the company.  Rotting design and cybertruck carnage During the call, Musk said he will focus more on Tesla and less on the government, blaming “people benefiting from fraudulent government money” for the protests against him. In his mind, these fraudsters are responsible for the company’s ongoing disaster, not him. But that shouldn’t distract from the real reasons for the “Teslapocalypse.” This didn’t happen because of Musk’s support for Donald Trump, though it did accelerate it.  Even without Musk’s recent behavior, Tesla would still suffer from its preexisting condition and the bare facts of its business model: stale design, no forward vision, no technological innovation. This is a trifecta for failure. Tesla lacks what it needs to save itself from the current realities of the automobile market. China—mainly BYD and brands like Xiaomi and Xpeng—has established itself as the clear design and technological car manufacturing leader in the world, resulting in its top spot in global sales, despite U.S. tariffs. And in Europe, Japan, and South Korea, the old brands have finally risen to the challenge, with BMW’s EV sales in Europe overtaking Tesla for the first time in February of this year. Tesla’s collapse began with its rotting design DNA. “The Model S is 10 years old now,” Adrian Clarke, a veteran car designer, told me in 2023. “Its other cars—Models 3, X, and Y—look like spitting-image cousins.” It’s 2025, and except for a lackluster refresh of Model Y so unappealing that the company has just announced a zero-interest five-year buying plan, nothing has changed. Tesla’s lineup remains a museum of stagnation in an industry where everyone refreshes models yearly. “Most manufacturers would replace a model after about seven or eight years,” Clarke told me. But Tesla clings to a decade-old template, a strategy former Jaguar designer Jeremy Newman calls “strategically irresponsible.”  How can anyone expect the market to keep buying Teslas when every other manufacturer is releasing new models, like BYD’s Yangwang U7 and its magical suspension system that eliminates all bumps. Then there’s the Xiaomi SU7 Ultra and its supercar features that come at regular sports car prices. Or the BMW iX—the best 2024 EV according to Consumer Reports. With this in mind, can anyone truly be surprised to see Tesla’s U.S. market share plummeting from 79.4% in 2020 to 65.4% in 2022 to 48.7% in 2024? Only the most deluded fanboys and Tesla bulls could ignore this. Everyone else is seeing the writing on the wall. The Cybertruck epitomizes Musk’s delusional leadership. When it launched, industry experts criticized and warned about its design. “Cold, sterile, and almost repulsive,” legendary designer Frank Stephenson spat. “Everyone I know thought there’s no way they’re gonna get that into production,” Clarke said at the time. They were partially right. The truck’s “dead straight panels” defied manufacturing logic, leading to countless recalls for razor-sharp frunks that slice fingers, accelerators that stick mid-drive, and “bulletproof” windows that can shatter from hail. By June 2024, more than 11,000 units faced recalls for failing wipers and loose trim. Sales cratered: After peaking at 16,692 units in Q3 2024, sales dropped to 12,991 in Q4—a 22% decrease—and fell further to 6,406 in Q1 2025, marking a 50% decline from the previous quarter. Can it be saved? Now you can add cratering financials to this technological and design mayhem. Tesla’s Q4 2024 deliveries hit a record 495,570 vehicles, but the cost was catastrophic. Price cuts and 0% financing slashed profit margins, with average sales prices plunging to $41,000—the lowest in four years. Annual deliveries fell 1.1% to 1.79 million, Tesla’s first decline since 2011. Meanwhile, BYD sold 595,413 battery electric vehicles in the same quarter. Analysts called Tesla’s performance an “unmitigated disaster” masked by temporary incentives. Today confirmed what we knew. Tesla’s first-quarter 2025 revenue came short of the estimated $21.1 billion at only $19.3 billion. Auto revenue fell 20%. It’s the worst quarter in almost three years, and the company’s first-ever year-to-year drop in sales.  Sure, the protests at stores and vandalism of Tesla lots fueled by Musk’s polarizing politics didn’t help this situation. But at the end of the day, if you give consumers the choice of buying a new EV design with superior technology at a lower price or a tired Tesla model, they will choose the former. Having a better product at the best price possible is the most important part for the long-term survival of any company. Talking to CNBC, Patrick George, editor-in-chief of InsideEVs, said the biggest operational challenge in the latest quarter was “the nuts-and-bolts job of being a car company.” For a car company that runs on, you know, car sales, things like robocabs and humanoid robots are a distraction. It’s no wonder that Tesla’s stock plummeted since December. Meanwhile, the rest of the market keeps innovating at record speeds. BYD’s flash-charging tech—refueling EVs in five minutes—and its Blade battery, hailed as “the world’s safest,” have left Tesla in the dust. The Xiaomi SU7, a luxury sports sedan priced like a Toyota, sold 88,898 units in 24 hours, proving Chinese brands can out-innovate and undercut. In Europe, BMW and Mercedes leveraged 60% customer loyalty to reclaim the luxury segment. “People want cars that fit into their lives,” Clarke told me two years ago. It was an industry lesson that Musk ignored.  Legendary investor and economist Bruce Greenwald warned about all of this in 2021, way before Musk descended into the political mud: “Twenty years from now—you really think that [Tesla is] going to dominate the auto market? Not a chance.” He was wrong by almost two decades. After today’s results, there are only two questions in my mind. First: How much more value will Musk obliterate before shareholders eject him? And the other, more pressing question: Will the next CEO be able to save the company? Tesla needs to do something radical right now. And that should start with Musk leaving the company.

Just a few months into Donald Trump’s second term, are the manosphere influencers who championed him already starting to backpedal? In a recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience, host Joe Rogan raised concerns about the president’s decision to send undocumented immigrants directly to El Salvador’s mega-prisons—without trial, lawyers, or, as critics argue, any semblance of due process. “What if you are an enemy of, let’s not say any current president. Let’s pretend we got a new president, totally new guy in 2028, and this is a common practice now of just rounding up gang members with no due process and shipping them to El Salvador, ‘you’re a gang member.’ ‘No, I’m not.’ ‘Prove it.’ ‘What? I got to go to court.’ ‘No. No due process,’” said Rogan. “We gotta be careful we don’t become monsters, while fighting monsters.” For those who had been sounding the alarm during Trump’s campaign, it was a painful watch. “Watching Joe Rogan figure this shit out in real time is painful,” one commenter wrote. “That ol’ ‘Even a broken clock is right twice a day’ idiom comes to mind,” another added. As one Reddit comment pointed out, “Why does he need to use a hypothetical president to make this point? This entire commentary describes the current administration.” View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler) This election cycle, Trump owes at least part of his victory to Rogan and other manosphere influencers who endorsed him. After hosting the now-president on The Joe Rogan Experience—in what became one of the most-watched podcast episodes of all time, with 58 million views at the time of writing—Rogan followed up with a full-throated endorsement just one day before the 2024 election. Are we now seeing the first cracks appear? Rogan isn’t the only vocal Trump supporter expressing unease in recent weeks. Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, who publicly backed Trump during the campaign, voiced frustration after the president’s rollout of sweeping tariffs sent markets into a nosedive. Portnoy claimed he lost $7 million in the aftermath. “So, Trump rolls out the tariffs, right?” Portnoy said in a livestream posted April 7. “This is a decision that one guy made that crashed the whole stock market. That’s why we’re calling it ‘Orange Monday’ and not ‘Black Monday.’” Just days earlier, Portnoy had reaffirmed his support for Trump. “I voted for Trump, I think he’s a smart guy,” he said in a clip. “I also think he’s playing a high-stakes game here. I’m gonna roll with him for a couple days, a couple weeks, see how this pans out.” By Monday, he said his estimated losses had climbed to $20 million.