One stock recently impacted by a whirlwind of volatility is Block—the fintech powerhouse behind Square, Cash App, Tidal Music, and more. The company’s COO and CFO, Amrita Ahuja, shares how her team is using new AI tools to find opportunity amid disruption and reach customers left behind by traditional financial systems. Ahuja also shares lessons from the video game industry and discusses Gen Z’s surprising approach to money management.   This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by Robert Safian, former editor-in-chief of Fast Company. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with today’s top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. As a leader, when you’re looking at all of this volatility—the tariffs, consumer sentiment’s been unclear, the stock market’s been all over the place. You guys had a huge one-day drop in early May, and it quickly bounced back. How do you make sense of all these external factors? Yeah, our focus is on what we can control. And ultimately, the thing that we are laser-focused on for our business is product velocity. How quickly can we start small with something, launch something for our customers, and then test and iterate and learn so that ultimately, that something that we’ve launched scales into an important product? I’ll give you an example. Cash App Borrow, which is a product where our customers can get access to a line of credit, often $100, $200, that bridges them from paycheck to paycheck. We know so many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. That’s a product that we launched about three years ago and have now scaled to serve 9 million actives with $15 billion in credit supply to our customers in a span of a couple short years. The more we can be out testing and launching product at a pace, the more we know we are ultimately delivering value to our customers, and the right things will happen from a stock perspective. Block is a financial services provider. You have Square, the point-of-sale system; the digital wallet Cash App, which you mentioned, which competes with Venmo and Robinhood; and a bunch of others. Then you’ve got the buy-now, pay-later leader Afterpay. You chair Square Financial Services, which is Block’s chartered bank. But you’ve said that in the fintech world, Block is only a little bit fin—that comparatively, it’s more tech. Can you explain what you mean by that? What we think is unique about us is our ability as a technology company to completely change innovation in the space, such that we can help solve systemic issues across credit, payments, commerce, and banking. What that means ultimately is we use technologies like AI and machine learning and data science, and we use these technologies in a unique way, in a way that’s different from a traditional bank. We are able to underwrite those who are often frankly forgotten by the traditional financial ecosystems. Our Square Loans product has almost triple the rate of women-owned businesses that we underwrite. Fifty-eight percent of our loans go to women-owned businesses versus 20% for the industry average. For that Cash App Borrow product I was talking about, 70% of those actives, the 9 million actives that we underwrote, fell below 580 as a FICO score. That’s considered a poor FICO score, and yet 97% of repayments are made on time. And this is because we have unique access to data and these technology and tools which can help us uniquely underwrite this often forgotten customer base. Yeah. I mean, credit—sometimes it’s been blamed for financial excesses. But access to credit is also, as you say, an advantage that’s not available to everyone. Do you have a philosophy between those poles—between risk and opportunity? Or is what you’re saying is that the tech you have allows you to avoid that risk? That’s right. Let’s start with how do the current systems work? It works using inferior data, frankly. It’s more limited data. It’s outdated. Sometimes it’s inaccurate. And it ignores things like someone’s cash flows, the stability of your income, your savings rate, how money moves through your accounts, or how you use alternative forms of credit—like buy now, pay later, which we have in our ecosystem through Afterpay. We have a lot of these signals for our 57 million monthly actives on the Cash App side and for the 4 million small businesses on the Square side, and those, frankly, billions of transaction data points that we have on any given day paired with new technologies. And we intend to continue to be on the forefront of AI, machine learning, and data science to be able to empower more people into the economy. The combination of the superior data and the technologies is what we believe ultimately helps expand access. You have a financial background, but not in the financial services industry. Before Block, you were a video game developer at Activision. Are financial businesses and video games similar? Are there things that are similar about them? There are. There actually are some things that are similar, I will say. There are many things that are unique to each industry. Each industry is incredibly complex. You find that when big technology companies try to do gaming. They’ve taken over the world in many different ways, but they can’t always crack the nut on putting out a great game. Similarly, some of the largest technology companies have dabbled in fintech but haven’t been able to go as deep, so they’re both very nuanced and complex industries. I would say another similarity is that design really matters. Industrial design, the design of products, the interface of products, is absolutely mission-critical to a great game, and it’s absolutely mission-critical to the simplicity and accessibility of our products, be it on Square or Cash App. And then maybe the third thing that I would say is that when I was in gaming, at least the business models were rapidly changing from an intermediary distribution mechanism, like releasing a game once and then selling it through a retailer, to an always-on, direct-to-consumer connection. And similarly with banking, people don’t want to bank from 9 to 5, six days a week. They want 24/7 access to their money and the ability to, again, grow their financial livelihood, move their money around seamlessly. So, some similarities are there in that shift to an intermediary model or a slower model to an always-on, direct-to-consumer connection. Part of your target audience or your target customer base at Block are Gen Z folks. Did you learn things at Activision about Gen Z that has been useful? Are there things that businesses misunderstand about younger generations still? What we’ve learned is that Gen Z, millennial customers, aren’t going to do things the way their parents did. Some of our stats show that 63% of Gen Z customers have moved away from traditional credit cards, and over 80% are skeptical of them. Which means they’re not using a credit card to manage expenses; they’re using a debit card, but then layering on on a transaction-by-transaction basis. Or again, using tools like buy now, pay later, or Cash App Borrow, the means in which they’re managing their consistent cash flows. So that’s an example of how things are changing, and you’ve got to get up to speed with how the next generation of customers expects to manage their money.

If you’ve ever flown through outer space, at least while watching a documentary or a science fiction film, you’ve seen how artists turn astronomical findings into stunning visuals. But in the process of visualizing data for their latest planetarium show, a production team at New York’s American Museum of Natural History made a surprising discovery of their own: a trillion-and-a-half mile long spiral of material drifting along the edge of our solar system. “So this is a really fun thing that happened,” says Jackie Faherty, the museum’s senior scientist. Last winter, Faherty and her colleagues were beneath the dome of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, fine-tuning a scene that featured the Oort cloud, the big, thick bubble surrounding our Sun and planets that’s filled with ice and rock and other remnants from the solar system’s infancy. The Oort cloud begins far beyond Neptune, around one and a half light years from the Sun. It has never been directly observed; its existence is inferred from the behavior of long-period comets entering the inner solar system. The cloud is so expansive that the Voyager spacecraft, our most distant probes, would need another 250 years just to reach its inner boundary; to reach the other side, they would need about 30,000 years.  The 30-minute show, Encounters in the Milky Way, narrated by Pedro Pascal, guides audiences on a trip through the galaxy across billions of years. For a section about our nascent solar system, the writing team decided “there’s going to be a fly-by” of the Oort cloud, Faherty says. “But what does our Oort cloud look like?”  To find out, the museum consulted astronomers and turned to David Nesvorný, a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. He provided his model of the millions of particles believed to make up the Oort cloud, based on extensive observational data. “Everybody said, go talk to Nesvorný. He’s got the best model,” says Faherty. And “everybody told us, ‘There’s structure in the model,’ so we were kind of set up to look for stuff,” she says.  The museum’s technical team began using Nesvorný’s model to simulate how the cloud evolved over time. Later, as the team projected versions of the fly-by scene into the dome, with the camera looking back at the Oort cloud, they saw a familiar shape, one that appears in galaxies, Saturn’s rings, and disks around young stars. “We’re flying away from the Oort cloud and out pops this spiral, a spiral shape to the outside of our solar system,” Faherty marveled. “A huge structure, millions and millions of particles.” She emailed Nesvorný to ask for “more particles,” with a render of the scene attached. “We noticed the spiral of course,” she wrote. “And then he writes me back: ‘what are you talking about, a spiral?’”  While fine-tuning a simulation of the Oort cloud, a vast expanse of ice material leftover from the birth of our Sun, the ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ production team noticed a very clear shape: a structure made of billions of comets and shaped like a spiral-armed galaxy, seen here in a scene from the final Space Show (curving, dusty S-shape behind the Sun) [Image: © AMNH] More simulations ensued, this time on Pleiades, a powerful NASA supercomputer. In high-performance computer simulations spanning 4.6 billion years, starting from the Solar System’s earliest days, the researchers visualized how the initial icy and rocky ingredients of the Oort cloud began circling the Sun, in the elliptical orbits that are thought to give the cloud its rough disc shape. The simulations also incorporated the physics of the Sun’s gravitational pull, the influences from our Milky Way galaxy, and the movements of the comets themselves.  In each simulation, the spiral persisted. “No one has ever seen the Oort structure like that before,” says Faherty. Nesvorný “has a great quote about this: ‘The math was all there. We just needed the visuals.’”  An illustration of the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud in relation to our solar system. [Image: NASA] As the Oort cloud grew with the early solar system, Nesvorný and his colleagues hypothesize that the galactic tide, or the gravitational force from the Milky Way, disrupted the orbits of some comets. Although the Sun pulls these objects inward, the galaxy’s gravity appears to have twisted part of the Oort cloud outward, forming a spiral tilted roughly 30 degrees from the plane of the solar system. “As the galactic tide acts to decouple bodies from the scattered disk it creates a spiral structure in physical space that is roughly 15,000 astronomical units in length,” or around 1.4 trillion miles from one end to the other, the researchers write in a paper that was published in March in the Astrophysical Journal. “The spiral is long-lived and persists in the inner Oort Cloud to the present time.” “The physics makes sense,” says Faherty. “Scientists, we’re amazing at what we do, but it doesn’t mean we can see everything right away.” It helped that the team behind the space show was primed to look for something, says Carter Emmart, the museum’s director of astrovisualization and director of Encounters. Astronomers had described Nesvorný’s model as having “a structure,” which intrigued the team’s artists. “We were also looking for structure so that it wouldn’t just be sort of like a big blob,” he says. “Other models were also revealing this—but they just hadn’t been visualized.” The museum’s attempts to simulate nature date back to its first habitat dioramas in the early 1900s, which brought visitors to places that hadn’t yet been captured by color photos, TV, or the web. The planetarium, a night sky simulator for generations of would-be scientists and astronauts, got its start after financier Charles Hayden bought the museum its first Zeiss projector. The planetarium now boasts one of the world’s few Zeiss Mark IX systems. Still, these days the star projector is rarely used, Emmart says, now that fulldome laser projectors can turn the old static starfield into 3D video running at 60 frames per second. The Hayden boasts six custom-built Christie projectors, part of what the museum’s former president called “the most advanced planetarium ever attempted.”  In about 1.3 million years, the star system Gliese 710 is set to pass directly through our Oort Cloud, an event visualized in a dramatic scene in ‘Encounters in the Milky Way.’ During its flyby, our systems will swap icy comets, flinging some out on new paths. [Image: © AMNH] Emmart recalls how in 1998, when he and other museum leaders were imagining the future of space shows at the Hayden—now with the help of digital projectors and computer graphics—there were questions over how much space they could try to show. “We’re talking about these astronomical data sets we could plot to make the galaxy and the stars,” he says. “Of course, we knew that we would have this star projector, but we really wanted to emphasize astrophysics with this dome video system. I was drawing pictures of this just to get our heads around it and noting the tip of the solar system to the Milky Way is about 60 degrees. And I said, what are we gonna do when we get outside the Milky Way?’ “Then [planetarium’s director] Neil Degrasse Tyson “goes, ‘whoa, whoa, whoa, Carter, we have enough to do. And just plotting the Milky Way, that’s hard enough.’ And I said, ‘well, when we exit the Milky Way and we don’t see any other galaxies, that’s sort of like astronomy in 1920—we thought maybe the entire universe is just a Milky Way.'” “And that kind of led to a chaotic discussion about, well, what other data sets are there for this?” Emmart adds. The museum worked with astronomer Brent Tully, who had mapped 3500 galaxies beyond the Milky Way, in collaboration with the National Center for Super Computing Applications. “That was it,” he says, “and that seemed fantastical.” By the time the first planetarium show opened at the museum’s new Rose Center for Earth and Space in 2000, Tully had broadened his survey “to an amazing” 30,000 galaxies. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey followed—it’s now at data release 18—with six million galaxies. To build the map of the universe that underlies Encounters, the team also relied on data from the European Space Agency’s space observatory, Gaia. Launched in 2013 and powered down in March of this year, Gaia brought an unprecedented precision to our astronomical map, plotting the distance between 1.7 billion stars. To visualize and render the simulated data, Jon Parker, the museum’s lead technical director, relied on Houdini, a 3D animation tool by Toronto-based SideFX. The goal is immersion, “whether it’s in front of the buffalo downstairs, and seeing what those herds were like before we decimated them, to coming in this room and being teleported to space, with an accurate foundation in the science,” Emmart says. “But the art is important, because the art is the way to the soul.”  The museum, he adds, is “a testament to wonder. And I think wonder is a gateway to inspiration, and inspiration is a gateway to motivation.” Three-D visuals aren’t just powerful tools for communicating science, but increasingly crucial for science itself. Software like OpenSpace, an open source simulation tool developed by the museum, along with the growing availability of high-performance computing, are making it easier to build highly detailed visuals of ever larger and more complex collections of data. “Anytime we look, literally, from a different angle at catalogs of astronomical positions, simulations, or exploring the phase space of a complex data set, there is great potential to discover something new,” says Brian R. Kent, an astronomer and director of science communications at National Radio Astronomy Observatory. “There is also a wealth of astronomics tatical data in archives that can be reanalyzed in new ways, leading to new discoveries.” As the instruments grow in size and sophistication, so does the data, and the challenge of understanding it. Like all scientists, astronomers are facing a deluge of data, ranging from gamma rays and X-rays to ultraviolet, optical, infrared, and radio bands. Our Oort cloud (center), a shell of icy bodies that surrounds the solar system and extends one-and-a-half light years in every direction, is shown in this scene from ‘Encounters in the Milky Way’ along with the Oort clouds of neighboring stars. The more massive the star, the larger its Oort cloud [Image: © AMNH ] “New facilities like the Next Generation Very Large Array here at NRAO or the Vera Rubin Observatory and LSST survey project will generate large volumes of data, so astronomers have to get creative with how to analyze it,” says Kent.  More data—and new instruments—will also be needed to prove the spiral itself is actually there: there’s still no known way to even observe the Oort cloud.  Instead, the paper notes, the structure will have to be measured from “detection of a large number of objects” in the radius of the inner Oort cloud or from “thermal emission from small particles in the Oort spiral.”  The Vera C. Rubin Observatory, a powerful, U.S.-funded telescope that recently began operation in Chile, could possibly observe individual icy bodies within the cloud. But researchers expect the telescope will likely discover only dozens of these objects, maybe hundreds, not enough to meaningfully visualize any shapes in the Oort cloud.  For us, here and now, the 1.4 trillion mile-long spiral will remain confined to the inside of a dark dome across the street from Central Park.

Two different groups of Americans are expected to march through the streets today. As thousands of troops march and dozens of tanks roll through Washington, D.C., for a military parade celebrating the Army’s 250th anniversary on President Donald Trump’s 79th birthday, millions of Americans nationwide are expected to protest against his administration, in what organizers believe will be the largest turnout yet since Trump took office in January for a second term. Here’s what to know about the “No Kings Day” protests: Why are people protesting? The No Kings Day protest movement builds on this spring’s massive May Day and Hands Off! rallies. They come after days of nationwide demonstrations against controversial federal immigration raids and deportations in Los Angeles and a number of other U.S. cities, which are part of the Trump administration’s ramped-up enforcement efforts. How big will the rallies be and where will they take place? Organizers expect 2,000 rallies to take place on Saturday in all 50 states and most major cities, “from city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks.” Protesters say they are “taking action to reject authoritarianism—and show the world what democracy really looks like.” To avoid clashes with the Army’s anniversary celebrations, protest gatherings will bypass the nation’s capital. (Trump has threatened to use “heavy force” against any protesters at the parade, comments the White House later attempted to clarify by asserting that the president supports “peaceful” protests.) The No Kings groups have created an extensive interactive map that includes the protest locations and times. The map is embedded on the No Kings website and is searchable by zip code. Who is behind the protest movement? Indivisible is the lead organizer of Saturday’s No Kings protests, along with a broad coalition of 180-plus partner organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Common Cause, Greenpeace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Standing Up for Science. A number of labor unions, including the Communication Workers of America and teacher federations, are also involved in the effort. Who will be speaking? The group 50501, another organizer of the protests, told Fast Company that some of the major speakers planned nationwide include former Democratic VP candidate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, in St. Paul; Martin Luther King Jr.’s son, Martin Luther King III, and his wife, Arndrea Waters King, in Philadelphia; No Kings Indivisible’s Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin, also in Philadelphia; Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib in Detroit; former Republican Representative Joe Walsh (who became a registered Democrat last week) in Charleston; and progressive political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen in downtown Los Angeles. What else is there to know? In addition to rallies around the U.S., protests are also expected in several other countries, including the U.K., Mexico, and Germany.

Like a good pair of Basquiat Crocs, there are innumerable bad ways to license an artist’s work. So when Airstream looked to partner up on a project with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, the aluminum-clad trailer brand could have just printed one of the architect’s famous patterns on a limited run of its vehicles and called it a day. It probably would have even sold well. But that is decidedly what Bob Wheeler, Airstream’s president and CEO, did not want to do.  “We said, ‘All right, let’s make sure that everything has a purpose and a function—that way it’s not just a pastiche, or some kind of lame attempt to mimic something,’” Wheeler recalls. “We didn’t want it to seem overdone or kitschy.” Instead, the brand embarked on a multiyear collaboration with the experts at Wright’s Taliesin West home and studio in Scottsdale, Arizona, and today the two are rolling out the 28-foot Airstream Frank Lloyd Wright Usonian Limited Edition Travel Trailer. With just 200 numbered vehicles that retail for $184,900 on offer, you—like me—might not be able to afford one at the moment, but they just might also restore your faith in the art of the artist collab at large.  [Photo: Airstream] BETTER LATE THAN NEVER Wheeler has a passion for midcentury design (as you might expect of Airstream’s CEO), so it tracks that he’d be a natural fan of Wright’s organic architecture. “Honestly, this has been a dream of mine for the last 20 years, which is about as long as I’ve been president of Airstream,” he says. “Why are Wright’s designs so celebrated today? It’s because they’re timeless. I think there are values there that incentivize someone to buy an Airstream that overlap in some meaningful ways.” Though Wright and Airstream founder Wally Byam were active at the same time and likely shared some of the same design fan base, there’s no record of them ever meeting. But a collaboration between the two ultimately proved inevitable when Wheeler reached out to Wright’s foundation in 2022. Foundation historian Sally Russell says her team wasn’t initially sure how robust a joint project could be. They eventually toured the Airstream factory in Ohio where the trailers are handmade using 3,000 rivets over the course of 350 hours, and saw how much customization was truly possible. Then she realized that it could be a great showcase of Wright’s work.  Beyond an Airstream’s signature aluminum exterior, Wheeler says the trailer is essentially a blank canvas. “And that’s where we can really flex some design muscle and allow others to do so.”  Russell says the foundation first explored whether to make the trailer feel like an adaptation of a specific Frank Lloyd Wright home. “The answer to that was no,” she says. “We didn’t want to try to re-create the Rosenbaum House and shove it into the size of a trailer. It didn’t make sense, because Frank Lloyd Wright certainly designed for each of his individual projects—he created something new, something that expressed the individual forms of the project, the needs of the client. So there was a great awareness of wanting to continue that legacy through the work that we did on the trailer.” The two teams ultimately homed in on the concept of Usonian design, a style that aimed to democratize design via small, affordable homes with a focus on efficient floor plans, functionality, and modularity.  In other words: an ideal fit for an Airstream. [Photo: Airstream] COLLAPSIBLE CHAIRS AND CLERESTORY WINDOWS When you approach the trailer, the connection to Wright is immediate on the custom front door featuring the Gordon leaf pattern, which the architect commissioned his apprentice Eugene Masselink to design in 1956. It’s a tip of the hat to nature, presumably an Airstreamer’s destination, and can be found subtly throughout the trailer in elements like sconces and cabinet pulls—but not too much, per the design mission at the outset. (“At one point we had a lot more of that Gordon leaf in there,” Wheeler notes. “We dialed that way back.”) With the push of a button, the bench seating converts into a king-size bed—one of Wheeler’s favorite elements. It is the largest bed in any Airstream, and is a first for the company, he says.  [Photo: Airstream] Another convertible element, in line with that focus on modularity, is the living space at the front of the trailer. Here, a dining table, desk, and seating inspired by the slant-back chairs that Wright used throughout his career collapse into a wall cabinet. Wheeler says Airstream used to deploy clever features like this in the midcentury era, before modern preferences trended toward built-in furniture. “So in some ways, this is a bit of a flashback to an earlier design in the ’50s, which is appropriate.” The teams also honored Wright’s focus on natural light, relocating Airstream’s usual overhead storage in favor of clerestory windows, which are prominent in Usonian homes. Meanwhile, the overall color palette comes from a 1955 Wright-curated Martin-Senour paint line. Russell says the team selected it for its harmonious blend with the natural settings where the trailer is likely headed, featuring ocher, red, and turquoise.  Ultimately, “It’s like a Frank Lloyd Wright home, where you walk into it, and it’s a completely different experience from any other building,” Russell says. “I hope that he would be very happy to see that design legacy continue, because he certainly did that with his own fellowship and the apprentices that he worked with.” [Photo: Airstream] USONIAN LIFE Starting today, the limited-edition, numbered trailers will be available for order at Airstream dealerships. Wheeler says the company was originally going to release just 100 of them, but got so much positive feedback from dealers and others that they doubled the run.  On the whole, the collaboration comes in the wake of a boom time for Airstream, which is owned by Thor Industries. Airstream experienced a surge during the pandemic, resulting in a 22% jump in sales in 2021 as people embraced remote work or realigned their relationship to the world.  “We’ve come back to earth now, and now we’re much more tied to actual market retail rates, which is what we know,” Wheeler says. In its third-quarter financials, Thor reported $2.89 billion in revenue (up 3.3% from previous year). While the company declined to provide Airstream-specific numbers, its overall North American towable RV division is up 9.1% from the same period in 2024. But there’s a problem afoot: The current administration’s tariffs, which Wheeler says made settling on the price for the Frank Lloyd Wright collaboration tricky. He adds that the company is struggling with shortages caused by the disruption in the supply chain, and high interest rates are also a problem.  [Photo: Airstream] “Look, we’re 94 years old,” he says. “We’ve been through more of these cycles than we can count, so we’re fine, and we’ll continue to trade on authenticity, quality, great service and support, a great dealer network, and a brand that really has become part of the fabric of the U.S. traveling adventure.”

In my last Fast Company column, I shared my reasons for manufacturing my electric trucks in the U.S. I’m not alone. While near-shoring to North America has been underway for several years, the current tariff shifts and shipping complexities make U.S. manufacturing a higher priority still. However, there were 292,825 factories in the U.S. as of 2021. Of those, 846 employ 1,000 people or more. Some of these are my engineering firm’s clients, giving us a front row seat to the complexity of retrofitting an existing factory to full U.S. manufacturing. While building a new factory is expensive and lengthy, these companies’ tasks are more difficult still. There are good reasons for making the shift as quickly as possible. Moving to most or fully U.S. manufacturing brings higher visibility, faster response time, and higher resilience to supply chain disruption, as well as greater protection from tariff shifts and geopolitical change. But if you’re early in the process, here’s my advice for your transition: Determine a priority ranking for the refining and raw materials you shift to in-country and North American sourcing. Give highest ranking to categories including defense, high value items (such as steel, aluminum, and rare minerals, etc.), and consumer safety items (such as pharmaceutical components, etc.). Be more strategic in the offshore suppliers you continue using for non-advanced manufacturing by prioritizing closer and more geographic-friendly locations for production and shipment such as Mexico and Argentina. Utilize government-backed capital, where possible, for extracting/mining minerals and metals such as lithium, red mud, magnesium, etc. Beyond the high-ranking product categories, move to domestic suppliers for primary materials such as steel, aluminum, cement, and plastics. Likewise, reduce offshoring of technical staff as well as raw materials, where possible. Use all means possible to become power independent through solar production, micro-grids, and nuclear power production. Consider creating a 4-year completion bonus for military vets. Hire vets wherever possible, as they make great workers and entrepreneurs. Likewise, we can press for future policy changes that best support Made in America manufacturing, as follows: Encourage ship building in the U.S., as well as creating new means of automated freight transit. Work towards transformation plans for government-funded R&D to include more attractive loans, rebates, and grants, as well as programs for tax-free status for intellectual property during commercialization, to incent and support organizations making the shift. Consider energy rebates to U.S. manufacturers and distributors to make American manufacturing more cost-effective and viable.   Create policies to include the cost of offshore staff in tariff calculations. Expand trade relationships with Caribbean nations for products such as sugar, avocados, bananas, etc. Avoid or even ban foreign ownership of the food supply chain. Create fair competition for government contracting. Make health supplements and homeopathic medicines tax deductible, to promote a healthy workforce. While it may not be readily evident, these policy changes are related to successful reshoring. In all, we need larger scale, lower costs, and more automated and simplified mechanisms for product manufacturing. These issues, in my experience, are as equally important as the raw materials we require. We need increased support for niche manufacturing. In my opinion, we also need deregulation, and increased access to land (particularly in the west; the federal government owns great quantities of the available land, which is choking available supply). I believe we need better education, self-reliance, health, and incentive structures to get the capital, entrepreneurs, and workers for Made in America manufacturing. Who’s with me? Matthew Chang is the founding partner of Chang Robotics.

Join Below Deck’s Captain Sandy and Bravo executive Frances Berwick for an exclusive conversation covering the launch of The Real Housewives of Rhode Island, Bravo’s expanding reality TV universe, and reflect on what’s made the network a cultural powerhouse. If you’re a fan of Below Deck, or just curious about how Bravo became a pop culture phenomenon, you won’t want to miss this interview.

Debate about whether artificial intelligence can replicate the intellectual labor of doctors, lawyers, or PhDs forgoes a deeper concern that’s looming: Entire companies—not just individual jobs—may be rendered obsolete by the accelerating pace of AI adoption. Reports suggesting OpenAI will charge $20,000 per month for agents trained at a PhD level spun up the ongoing debate about whose job is safe from AI and whose job is not. “I’ve not seen it be that impressive yet, but it’s likely not far off,” James Villarrubia, head of digital innovation and AI at NASA CAS, told me. Sean McGregor, the founder of Responsible AI Collaborative who earned a PhD in computer science, pointed out how many jobs are about more than just a set of skills: “Current AI technology is not sufficiently robust to allow unsupervised control of hazardous chemistry equipment, human experimentation, or other domains where human PhDs are currently required.” The big reason I polled the audience on this one was because I wanted to broaden my perspective on what jobs would be eliminated. Instead, it changed my perspective. AI needs to outperform the system, not the role Suzanne Rabicoff, founder of the human agency think tank and fractional practice, The Pie Grower, gave me some reading assignments from her work, instead of a quote. Her work showed me that these times are unprecedented. But something clicked in my brain when she said in her writing that she liked the angle of more efficient companies rising instead of jobs being replaced at companies with a lot of tech and human capital debt. Her response to that statement? “Exactly my bet.”  Sure, this is the first time that a robot is doing the homework for some college students. However, there is more precedent for robots moving market share than for replacing the same job function across a sector. Fortune 500 companies—especially those bloated with legacy processes and redundant labor—are always vulnerable to decline as newer, more nimble competitors rise. And not because any single job is replaced, but because the foundational economics of their business models no longer hold. AI doesn’t need to outperform every employee to render an enterprise obsolete. It only needs to outperform the system. Case study: The auto industry Take, for example, the decline of American car manufacturers in the late 20th century. In the 1950s, American automakers had a stranglehold on the car industry, not unlike today’s tech giants. In 1950, the U.S. produced about 75% of the world’s cars. But in the 1970s, Japanese automakers pioneered the use of robotics in auto manufacturing. These companies produced higher-quality vehicles at great value thanks to leaner operations that were also more precise. Firms like GM struggled to keep up, burdened by outdated factories and excessive human capital costs—including bloated pensions. The seismic shift in the decades to follow paints a picture of what could be in store for large companies now. In 1960, the U.S. produced about 48% of the world’s cars, while Japan accounted for just 5%. By 1980, Japan had captured around 29% of the market, while the U.S. had fallen to 23%. Today’s AI shakeup could look similar. Decades from now, we could look at Apple similarly to how we look at Ford now. AI startups with more agile structures are poised to eat market share. On top of that, startups can focus on solving specialized problems, sharpening their competitive edge. Will your company shrivel and die? The fallout has already begun. Gartner surveyed organizations in late 2023, finding that about half were developing their own AI tools. By the end of 2024, that dropped to 20%. As hype around generative AI cools, Gartner notes that many chief information officers are instead using outside vendors—either large language model providers or traditional software sellers with AI-enhanced offerings. In 2024, AI startups received nearly half of the $209 billion in global venture funding. If only 20% of legacy organizations currently feel confident competing with these upstarts, how many will feel that confidence as these startups mature? While headlines continue to fixate on whether AI can match PhD-level expertise, the deeper risk remains largely unspoken: Giant companies will shrivel and some may die. And when they do, your job is at risk whether you greet customers at the front desk or hold a PhD in an engineering discipline. But there are ways to stay afloat. One of the most impactful pieces of advice I ever received came from Jonathan Rosenberg, former SVP of products at Google and current advisor to Alphabet, when I visited the company’s campus in college. “You can’t just be great at what you do, you have to catch a great wave. Early people think it’s about the company, then the job, then the industry. It’s actually industry, company, job…” So, how do you catch the AI wave? Ankur Patel, CEO of Multimodal, advises workers to learn how to do their current jobs using AI tools that enhance productivity. He also notes that soft skills—mobilizing people, building relationships, leading teams—will become increasingly valuable as AI takes over more technical or routine tasks. “You can’t have AI be a group leader or team leader, right? I just don’t see that happening, even in the next generation forward,” Patel said. “So I think that’s a huge opportunity…to grow and learn from.” The bottom line is this: Even if the AI wave doesn’t replace you, it may replace the place you work. Will you get hit by the AI wave—or will you catch it? George Kailas is CEO of Prospero.ai.

Liquid Death isn’t just water, it’s a master class in disruptive branding. In this explainer, we break down how the company built a reputation by launching bizarre, unforgettable collabs. Learn how it became the king of viral marketing one stunt at a time.

Swifties have plenty to celebrate on Friday as Taylor Swift announced that she now owns the master recordings of her first six albums after years of trying and failing to buy them. Swift posted the news to her website, explaining that she was able to purchase the original versions of the albums from Shamrock Capital, the private equity firm that bought the recordings from music manager Scooter Braun in 2020 for at least $300 million.  In an emotional letter, Swift called securing her masters a dream come true, describing herself as “endlessly thankful” to Shamrock Capital for handling the deal fairly and offering her the first chance she’s ever been given to buy back her own music. “This was a business deal to them, but I really felt like they saw it for what it was to me: My memories and my sweat and my handwriting and my decades of dreams,” Swift wrote. An uphill battle, even for a billionaire titan of the music industry After two decades “of having the carrot dangled and then yanked away,” Swift admitted that she almost stopped believing that she would ever own the original recordings. “But that’s all in the past now,” Swift wrote. “I’ve been bursting into tears of joy at random intervals ever since I found out that this is really happening. I really get to say these words: All of the music I’ve ever made . . . now belongs . . . to me.” In 2019, Braun acquired Nashville indie record label Big Machine, along with the rights to the albums Swift had recorded there. After Braun’s purchase, Swift stated that she was in no way consulted on the deal and had suffered from “incessant, manipulative bullying” by the industry executive.  “It’s a shame to know that I will now be unable to help grow the future of these past works and it pains me very deeply to be separated from the music I spent over a decade creating,” Swift said after the deal went public. An update on the status of Reputation In light of her struggle to regain control of her own music, Swift set out to rerecord the albums she didn’t own. She began issuing Taylor’s Version updates to her missing catalog albums in 2021, putting out rerecordings of Fearless, Red, Speak Now, and 1989 accompanied by previously unreleased songs. Fans eager for news that Swift had finished rerecording her sixth studio album, Reputation, have plenty to cheer but are still in for a wait. In her announcement, Swift divulged that, “full transparency,” she’s less than a quarter of the way through the process. “To be perfectly honest, it’s the one album in the first 6 that I thought couldn’t be improved upon by redoing it. Not the music, or photos, or videos. So I kept putting it off,” Swift wrote, adding that she’s happy with a now-finished rerecording of her self-titled debut album.  “Those 2 albums can still have their moments to re-emerge when the time is right . . . But if it happens, it won’t be from a place of sadness and longing for what I wish I could have,” Swift wrote. “It will just be a celebration now.”

Let’s get this out of the way: We constantly live in uncertain times. Periods of tranquility are actually an aberration, if not an illusion. The relationship between marketing budgets and economic volatility has always been complex. What we’re witnessing isn’t just the usual ebb and flow of consumer confidence or standard market corrections. It’s an unprecedented convergence of tariff confusion, inflationary pressures, supply chain disruptions, and debt refinancing challenges. As I talk to CMOs and marketing leaders across industries, one word keeps surfacing: paralysis. Decision makers find themselves frozen, unsure whether to commit to long-term advertising contracts, unable to accurately forecast costs, and struggling to craft messaging that resonates in a consumer landscape where spending power is increasingly unpredictable. The historical perspective: Who thrives in downturns? When I look back at previous economic contractions—particularly 2008 and 2020—a clear pattern emerges that separates survivors from thrivers. In 2008, as financial markets collapsed, brands like Amazon, Netflix, and Hyundai didn’t retreat. They advanced. Netflix invested heavily in its streaming service during the financial crisis, laying the groundwork for its eventual dominance. Hyundai introduced its ground-breaking “Assurance Program,” allowing customers to return newly purchased vehicles if they lost their jobs—a true masterstroke that increased Hyundai’s market share while competitors were seeing double-digit sales declines. The 2020 pandemic presented similar divergent paths. While many brands slashed marketing budgets in panic, companies like Zoom and DoorDash significantly increased their marketing investments, recognizing the unique moment to capture market share when consumers were rapidly forming new habits. The common thread? These companies didn’t view marketing as a discretionary expense to be cut during uncertainty. They saw it as a strategic lever, one that should be pulled harder during hard times. 4 strategic approaches for the uncertainty-conscious marketer Here’s what the most forward-thinking marketers are doing now to navigate the choppy waters ahead: They’re embracing flexibility in all media contracts. The days of rigid, long-term commitments are giving way to more agile arrangements that allow for budget reallocation as economic conditions shift. This means negotiating pause clauses, shorter commitment windows, and performance-based terms that protect all contracted parties. Budgets are shifting toward measurable, adaptable channels. While social media and traditional media face the deepest anticipated cuts (41% and 43% respectively), digital advertising continues to gain market share despite economic concerns. Digital is projected to encompass up to 79% of total ad spend by 2030, up from its current 67%. Message content is being entirely rethought. In the face of economic anxiety, brands need messaging that acknowledges reality while providing genuine value. We’re seeing this play out in automotive advertising, where some manufacturers are emphasizing their American manufacturing credentials. Ford’s “From America, For America” campaign represents a strategic positioning that resonates in an era of tariff concerns. As Hyundai, in 2008, these advertisers are using the moment to emphasize their particular brand’s appeal. AI is being leveraged not just for cost cutting but for scenario planning. The most sophisticated marketing teams are using AI to model multiple economic outcomes and prepare messaging, budget allocations, and channel strategies for each scenario. The creative reset: How agencies have already adapted It’s worth noting that the industry isn’t starting from scratch in facing these challenges. Client behavior on creative development has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past several years. The best independent agencies have already restructured their operations in response. Gone are the days of lengthy creative development cycles and rigid campaign frameworks. Anticipating these changes years ago, independent shops have largely embraced agile methodologies that align perfectly with today’s economic realities. In many ways, the independent agency sector has already prepared for exactly this kind of destabilizing environment. They’ve built their businesses around speed and adaptability rather than scale and standardization. As such, they’re uniquely positioned to help steer brands through bumps ahead without sacrificing creative impact or market presence. Brand versus performance in uncertain times Perhaps the most critical strategic question facing marketers is how to balance brand building against performance marketing when budgets contract. Historical data consistently shows that brands maintaining or increasing their share of voice during downturns emerge in stronger positions when markets recover. Yet short-term revenue pressures make performance marketing irresistibly tempting when every dollar must be justified. The smart play here isn’t choosing one over the other but reimagining how all of these factors work together. Performance marketing can be designed to build brand equity simultaneously. Brand marketing can incorporate more direct response elements. The artificial wall between these disciplines must come down to survive economic headwinds. Opportunity within adversity The brands that will emerge strongest from this period of uncertainty won’t be those with the largest budgets, but those with the clearest strategic vision, the most agile execution, and the courage to maintain presence when competitors retreat. Economic uncertainty doesn’t change the fundamental truth that share of voice leads to share of market. It simply raises the stakes and rewards those who can maintain their voice when others fall silent. Looking at the latter half of 2025, the marketing leaders who view this period not as a time to hide but as a rare opportunity to stand out will be the ones writing the success stories we’ll be studying for years to come. Tim Ringel is global CEO of Meet The People.

The lab as we know it today is being transformed by how we think about medical research and drug discovery, as well as the intersection of artificial intelligence and biotechnology. As someone who has transitioned from a doctor to a tech CEO, I’ve witnessed firsthand how our mindset around medicine and innovation needs to evolve to keep pace with the accelerating changes in technology. In my journey, one of the most important lessons I’ve learned is: You can be too smart for your own good. It may sound counterintuitive, but when building a company or investing in new technologies, the smartest people often fall into the trap of overcomplicating things. A brilliant idea isn’t always enough. You need the right people who can think creatively, take risks, and make it happen in the real world. For me, the mindset shift from doctor to CEO was about understanding that it’s not just about medical knowledge; it’s about building the right ecosystem to nurture that knowledge and turn it into real and transformative change. I believe that a crucial part of that ecosystem for my company, Owkin, is a new form of intelligence: a biological artificial superintelligence (BASI) to complement the ingenious human minds working with us. Next generation AI tools, like K Navigator, Owkin’s agentic co-pilot for researchers, and K Pro for pharma, which is in the pipeline, will allow us to understand the full complexity of biology that has been beyond human understanding so far. This forms the backbone of Owkin’s mission: We are creating the next-generation pharma focused on discovering cures and significantly enhancing pipeline value by developing a new intelligence system capable of decoding biological truths at scale. AI can fill the innovation gap left by pharma As the pharmaceutical industry increasingly focuses on a handful of blockbuster drugs, it’s leaving behind many areas of medicine that are crucial for the future of healthcare. Too many diseases remain uncured as traditional pharma struggles to navigate the complexity of biology to augment care with efficient new molecules and diagnostics. From rare diseases to precision oncology, there’s an innovation gap that AI is perfectly positioned to fill. AI can identify previously overlooked opportunities and streamline the development of treatments that are highly personalized and targeted. Unlike traditional pharmaceutical companies that are heavily reliant on large-scale, high-risk projects, AI companies can operate in a more agile, data-driven way. We can make smaller, more informed bets, leveraging machine learning and vast datasets to uncover insights that were once out of reach. This shift enables faster and more efficient drug discovery, with the added benefit of offering solutions for diseases that may not have attracted the attention of big pharma. Cell lines alone aren’t going to work Most traditional biological research has been based on cell lines—cells removed from the human body and grown in petri dishes. But as we look to the future, there’s a growing realization that cell lines, and other traditional research methods, are becoming outdated. While once a staple in biomedical research, they do not accurately replicate the complexity of human biology, and they fail to capture the diversity and variability that exists in real patients. AI-driven models are capable of moving beyond the limitations of cell lines by integrating data both from research done in cells and tissues removed from the body (in vitro) and from research done in living animals (in vivo). This validation approach, which incorporates multiple data types and sources, allows us to create more reliable and predictive models of human diseases. Science is advancing, and so is regulation. The FDA’s recent announcement of plans to phase out animal testing in favor of “more effective, human-relevant methods” means that we are entering an era where therapies can be tested on human tissue models from the very start. In collaboration with leading academic centers, Owkin has developed a patient-derived, lab-grown organoid (a mini version of a human organ), a breakthrough that brings us closer to faster, more accurate, and humane drug discovery. The combination of clinical data, genomic insights, and AI not only accelerates the development of new treatments but also increases their chances of success in clinical trials. The lab of the future The lab of the future will be one where AI is at the center, guiding discovery, improving precision, and increasing efficiency. Validation using real-world data will allow us to make better decisions and achieve higher rates of success. The traditional research process is being upended by these new technologies, and that’s a good thing. The future of medicine will not just rely on human expertise, but on the power of AI and data to transform how we understand and treat disease. AI will deliver transformative therapies at an exponential scale, addressing the complexities of biology that traditional pharmaceutical approaches often cannot solve. Labs will become automated and serve as the ultimate playground for scientists, driving the future of drug discovery by harnessing the full potential of advanced AI systems. In these dynamic labs, organoids and agents will come together to work in synergy, allowing scientists to model and simulate human biology with greater accuracy. AI-driven technology will decipher biological patterns to identify the patients most likely to respond to specific treatments, significantly improving the chances of success in clinical trials and beyond. Seamlessly integrating these cutting-edge tools into the lab environment will transform the way we approach drug discovery, targeting diseases with a level of precision that was previously unimaginable. By pioneering the use of data, biology, and AI to decode the fundamental mechanics of disease and advance medical science, it will be possible to establish a foundation for the future of a “positive singularity” in medicine. Through this innovative ecosystem, AI can revolutionize medicine. The time to innovate is now, and the possibilities are endless. Thomas Clozel is cofounder and CEO of Owkin.

In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California, trees that have persisted through rain and shine for thousands of years are now facing multiple threats triggered by a changing climate. Scientists and park managers once thought giant sequoia forests were nearly impervious to stressors like wildfire, drought and pests. Yet, even very large trees are proving vulnerable, particularly when those stressors are amplified by rising temperatures and increasing weather extremes. The rapid pace of climate change—combined with threats like the spread of invasive species and diseases—can affect ecosystems in ways that defy expectations based on past experiences. As a result, Western forests are transitioning to grasslands or shrublands after unprecedented wildfires. Woody plants are expanding into coastal wetlands. Coral reefs are being lost entirely. To protect these places, which are valued for their natural beauty and the benefits they provide for recreation, clean water and wildlife, forest and land managers increasingly must anticipate risks they have never seen before. And they must prepare for what those risks will mean for stewardship as ecosystems rapidly transform. As ecologists and a climate scientist, we’re helping them figure out how to do that. Managing changing ecosystems Traditional management approaches focus on maintaining or restoring how ecosystems looked and functioned historically. However, that doesn’t always work when ecosystems are subjected to new and rapidly shifting conditions. Ecosystems have many moving parts—plants, animals, fungi, and microbes; and the soil, air and water in which they live—that interact with one another in complex ways. When the climate changes, it’s like shifting the ground on which everything rests. The results can undermine the integrity of the system, leading to ecological changes that are hard to predict. To plan for an uncertain future, natural resource managers need to consider many different ways changes in climate and ecosystems could affect their landscapes. Essentially, what scenarios are possible? Preparing for multiple possibilities At Sequoia and Kings Canyon, park managers were aware that climate change posed some big risks to the iconic trees under their care. More than a decade ago, they undertook a major effort to explore different scenarios that could play out in the future. It’s a good thing they did, because some of the more extreme possibilities they imagined happened sooner than expected. In 2014, drought in California caused the giant sequoias’ foliage to die back, something never documented before. In 2017, sequoia trees began dying from insect damage. And, in 2020 and 2021, fires burned through sequoia groves, killing thousands of ancient trees. While these extreme events came as a surprise to many people, thinking through the possibilities ahead of time meant the park managers had already begun to take steps that proved beneficial. One example was prioritizing prescribed burns to remove undergrowth that could fuel hotter, more destructive fires. The key to effective planning is a thoughtful consideration of a suite of strategies that are likely to succeed in the face of many different changes in climates and ecosystems. That involves thinking through wide-ranging potential outcomes to see how different strategies might fare under each scenario—including preparing for catastrophic possibilities, even those considered unlikely. For example, prescribed burning may reduce risks from both catastrophic wildfire and drought by reducing the density of plant growth, whereas suppressing all fires could increase those risks in the long run. Strategies undertaken today have consequences for decades to come. Managers need to have confidence that they are making good investments when they put limited resources toward actions like forest thinning, invasive species control, buying seeds or replanting trees. Scenarios can help inform those investment choices. Constructing credible scenarios of ecological change to inform this type of planning requires considering the most important unknowns. Scenarios look not only at how the climate could change, but also how complex ecosystems could react and what surprises might lay beyond the horizon. Scientists at the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center are collaborating with managers in the Nebraska Sandhills to develop scenarios of future ecological change under different climate conditions, disturbance events like fires and extreme droughts, and land uses like grazing. [Photos: T. Walz, M. Lavin, C. Helzer, O. Richmond, NPS (top to bottom)., CC BY] Key ingredients for crafting ecological scenarios To provide some guidance to people tasked with managing these landscapes, we brought together a group of experts in ecology, climate science, and natural resource management from across universities and government agencies. We identified three key ingredients for constructing credible ecological scenarios: 1. Embracing ecological uncertainty: Instead of banking on one “most likely” outcome for ecosystems in a changing climate, managers can better prepare by mapping out multiple possibilities. In Nebraska’s Sandhills, we are exploring how this mostly intact native prairie could transform, with outcomes as divergent as woodlands and open dunes. 2. Thinking in trajectories: It’s helpful to consider not just the outcomes, but also the potential pathways for getting there. Will ecological changes unfold gradually or all at once? By envisioning different pathways through which ecosystems might respond to climate change and other stressors, natural resource managers can identify critical moments where specific actions, such as removing tree seedlings encroaching into grasslands, can steer ecosystems toward a more desirable future. 3. Preparing for surprises: Planning for rare disasters or sudden species collapses helps managers respond nimbly when the unexpected strikes, such as a severe drought leading to widespread erosion. Being prepared for abrupt changes and having contingency plans can mean the difference between quickly helping an ecosystem recover and losing it entirely. Over the past decade, access to climate model projections through easy-to-use websites has revolutionized resource managers’ ability to explore different scenarios of how the local climate might change. What managers are missing today is similar access to ecological model projections and tools that can help them anticipate possible changes in ecosystems. To bridge this gap, we believe the scientific community should prioritize developing ecological projections and decision-support tools that can empower managers to plan for ecological uncertainty with greater confidence and foresight. Ecological scenarios don’t eliminate uncertainty, but they can help to navigate it more effectively by identifying strategic actions to manage forests and other ecosystems. Kyra Clark-Wolf is a research scientist in ecological transformation at the University of Colorado Boulder. Brian W. Miller is a research ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey. Imtiaz Rangwala is a research scientist in climate at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lyse Martel is a Berlin-based “Color, Materials, and Finish” (CMF) designer and strategist in the mobility and consumer electronics industries. Her work combines craftsmanship and emerging technology to shape design strategy, drive material innovation, and create new sensory experiences. Lyse is fascinated by design’s power to shape how people feel and act. She believes design can foster emotional connection and wellbeing at a time when AI and automation are making their way into many new consumer product experiences, from the car to the living room. Below, Martel explores the emotional dimension of circular design and how the CMF field is evolving to meet the global challenges of circularity and sustainability. Fast Company: Please introduce yourself to our readers.Lyse MartelLyse Martel: I’m Lyse Martel, a CMF designer and design strategist, working primarily in automotive and consumer electronics. CMF, which stands for Color, Materials, and Finish, is about how a product looks, feels, and connects emotionally. So my work focuses on those elements as well as on strategy, brand identity, and sustainability. Although I mainly work in automotive and consumer electronics, CMF can apply to many different areas. Over the years I’ve worked with brands like Bang & Olufsen, Hopium, and NIO. And most recently I was directing a circular design project at Volkswagen Group—designing for circularity from the start with a large team of designers from different disciplines. How did you find your way into this field? It was step by step. My love for design was always there, even before I knew what to call it. It was shaped by my family’s craftsmanship, as well as my own curiosity for shapes, textures, colors, and sensory experiences. On my father’s side, I grew up around a lot of woodworking and carpentry. And on my mother’s side are generations of tailors. So that gave me an appreciation for textiles and textures and detailing and crafts. And I’ve always loved illustration and drawing and building small architectures with natural elements—everything that could involve materials and aesthetics. And I think that brought me to materiality and storytelling and eventually to CMF design. Were you able to find an educational path that encouraged your interests? I went to a specialized high school for applied arts and design, where I grew immensely as a creative person, and had a teacher who supported me and saw my potential with conceptual thinking. At university another teacher encouraged me to apply to a design internship in the automotive sector in Paris, and that’s how I formally entered the CMF design field. I was immediately drawn to the innovation and complexity of using material and color to shape the brand identity for a mobility project. [Photo: Lyse Martel]How do you stay on top of trends in color and material?Much of it is intuitive, but we also learn to connect the dots and see trends. I’m very much inspired by psychology and by what’s going on in the world—anything that could possibly impact human experiences and emotions. I’m paying attention to developments in architecture, interiors, digital and physical design, and material innovation. I’m also looking at global trends that have nothing to do with the design industry, including culture and the natural world. Nature plays a big role because you can look at how light interacts, how materials evolve with time, the functioning of ecosystems, and agriculture. I’m also very interested in how CMF design intersects with concepts like wellbeing and happiness, so I follow influential practitioners like Ivy Ross from Google, and Susan Magsamen, who works on neuroaesthetics, and Carol Gilligan, the psychologist and philosopher. Could you share more about neuroaesthetics? Neuroaesthetics looks at how design makes people feel: how beauty and art and design influence our brain, and how things like color, textures, light, and sound make us react cognitively or emotionally. We know that certain visual experiences will calm or excite us, while others make us feel uncomfortable. Designers can leverage those insights to create more meaningful and intuitive interactions. I’ve always been fascinated by how design makes people feel, and neuroaesthetics gives us the scientific reasoning behind those ideas. For instance, when I’m working with color and material for a car interior, I can decide to craft a more calming atmosphere with natural materials, or use soft lighting or a color gradient that can guide the user’s eye. I can think about how textures and tactility will influence the user’s feeling of comfort, or their perception of product quality or durability. When it comes to sustainability, there are a lot of materials that may not be readily acceptable to a user. In that case it can be helpful to lean into the authenticity of that material, perhaps by making it warmer or softer, or relating it to nature through colors or grain. So if we can somehow elevate or upscale the experience with that material, then we can start to shift the mindset to embrace sustainable materials or choices. Earlier you mentioned your work in circular design. Could you share more about that? Circular design is rethinking how we create and use products. It means designing for longevity, adaptability, and regeneration. We seek out the right materials, we design for easy reuse and repair, and we try to ensure that the product stays in circulation for as long as possible. Longevity is the number one criteria, because the longer you use a product, the less impact it has in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and other waste metrics. With circularity do you encounter pushback from industries that simply need consumers to keep buying more stuff? It does clash with short-term profit models, so it’s not easy for businesses to embrace it completely. But there is momentum for circular design, which is driven by consumer expectations, tighter regulations, and a growing recognition that resource efficiency is also smart business. I’ve seen mobility and consumer electronics firms try out concepts like modularity, repairability, and designing with disassembly in mind. Neuroaesthetics seems to be a strategy for tapping into people’s innate preferences for certain colors, materials, and finishes. But could also instigate behavior change, by tapping into the emotional layer of circularity? Absolutely, it can be surprisingly comforting, even if the materials are unexpected. When designing a circular product, you’re often working with waste, like a polymer that’s meant to circulate between cars. The challenge is making that material feel good, both emotionally and physically. What works is embracing the material’s character, maybe it has a soft texture or a slight irregularity, like a grain or uneven thread. Or it comes in a natural color that feels ultra-fresh. These little details shift the focus from what it is to how it makes you feel. You might not even realize it’s recycled plastic, but it just feels right. Sometimes, a car interior can feel like a cozy cabin, all because of the right textures and tones. That emotional layer is what really connects circularity.How could neuroaesthetics help make people comfortable with something new, like self-driving cars? It’s really about how shapes, colors and textures support the digital experience; all the micro-details working together to help the user feel at ease. I’ve been testing self-driving vehicles recently, and it’s surprising how much the environment impacts your reaction. In one case, the layout was minimal, with just the right number of buttons, and that simplicity helped me relax. But I also tested a car that was entirely gray, and it felt dull and dated. Light tones or soft gradients, something that evokes a sunrise or sunset, can go a long way in making the space feel more inviting.With automation, trust becomes a key part of the brief. How easily will someone understand what’s happening? Are they okay letting go of the wheel? That’s where CMF design needs to be fully integrated. I have to work closely with the interior and UX designers so that everything speaks the same language. If I propose a soft, natural palette and the shapes are cold or aggressive, it creates a disconnect.[AI Image: courtesy Lyse Martel]Can you share how you use AI in your work, or how AI factors into the CMF design process? It’s part of my creative process in that it helps me visualize materials, colors, and sensory experiences I’m considering for a project. It’s a great way to communicate an idea visually, and also to put it out there so someone else can pick it up and build on it. So for me, it’s really a tool that helps us be more precise in how we express and share ideas.There are also really promising use cases in circular design, where AI can help us map local resources and integrate them more intelligently into products. For example, there’s a lot of bamboo in China, linen in the north of France, or paper waste around Berlin. So what can we do with that knowledge? We can see where materials are available, but also think about how to reduce waste, predict life cycles, or imagine new reuse scenarios. Anything that involves localizing or optimizing can be supported by AI.And as the digital world increasingly shapes the physical one, I think there’s real potential in using these new, hyper-sensory AI-generated visuals to inspire physical experiences. Neuroaesthetics helps us design for emotion, and AI can help translate those emotional cues into visual concepts that, when made real, feel meaningful and multi-sensory. Do you ever get any pushback for the decisions that you or your team might make as CMF designers? Sometimes there’s a strong reaction to a particular color or material choice. I remember working on a concept car called Eve, developed with a strong focus on emerging markets and innovative design languages. I proposed an exterior in a rose gold tone, which could be read as pink. That sparked some discomfort in the room. I think it challenged certain expectations of what a car should look like, especially in Western automotive culture. But in China, rose gold is often associated with refinement and quality. It’s not seen as gendered in the same way. So for me, it was an opportunity to bring a fresh, culturally relevant aesthetic into the project. I understood the hesitation, but that’s part of the role. Sometimes CMF invites us to gently shift the visual language and open up new emotional possibilities.[Image: Felix Godard Design]Are there certain colors and finishes that are timeless and others that are more transitory? In the last decade we used a lot of neutrals, like beige and gray. Many brands also decided to shape themselves around their core colors—“our black,” “our white,” etc. And they would build up from there to include more exciting colors into their identity. Today I see those approaches being challenged. Gen Z is coming in and they have other ideas about what’s fresh. In the past few years we saw a lot of yellows. Recently, dark reds have been popping up everywhere, and they’re a powerful, timeless choice that adds richness and sophistication. These colors grab attention and can work well, but we need to be mindful of their relevance for long-term products.I believe there is still a need for that core timelessness. You might use black as a core color, but you might tint it blue to make it more interesting or less intense. When I was at Bang & Olufsen, we often discussed how to stand out from typical black consumer electronics. For a more lifestyle-oriented, subtle design in the home, why not use gray?[Image: courtesy NIO]Are you ever surprised when a particular color takes off? The latest Pantone color of the year is a brown-beige shade, which honestly surprised me. I’ve used warm grays before when I wanted to give a product a cozier, inviting feel, but this one doesn’t feel as fresh to me. I’m not sure it resonates with the moment in the same way other trends do. I love when a heritage brand takes an unexpected turn, like the paper company GF Smith, which recently rebranded with vibrant, poppy colors and introduced a bespoke, rounded sans-serif typeface, GF Smith Homie. I like to see they are brushing off the history to embrace different values and just be human. They want to stand for inclusivity, so they’re going to speak up about that and make sure it’s seen in the brand.Where do you draw creative inspiration? It’s really what makes me burn, what is calling my heart. I also need to talk to people—not only creatives, but people from all walks of life. I enjoy traveling through my city and looking at how people live. I learn a lot simply from riding the train, overhearing conversations, and observing how the mood changes with the seasons. I also read the news and check out certain magazines. There’s one I like, Imagine5, that focuses on how to make sustainability joyful. It explores that from all angles and it’s very accessible. You don’t have to be a sustainability expert to enjoy it. [Image: courtesy NIO]Could you share some of the projects you’ve worked on that you’re most proud of? I joined the global smart EV brand NIO in its early stages, when the brand vision was still taking shape, and contributed to the initial direction of color, materials, and finishes as part of the design team. The objective was to align with their vision of “Blue Sky Coming,” so we had to come up with progressive aesthetics and human-centered design, which later evolved into design principles. Shaping that brand was extremely rich for me in terms of learning and collaborating with so many talented designers. I also led a couple of projects – one was the previously mentioned concept car called Eve. I had the opportunity to introduce more natural materials and different colors that were not commonly used in the automotive space.Introducing new aesthetics became an important theme for my later work with Bang & Olufsen, which was about connecting the dots between sound and material and design. And then more recently, the circularity project I’ve been leading for Volkswagen Group is really close to my heart. The brief was to introduce longevity, adaptability, and recyclability across all design touch points for Volkswagen. To that end we provided creative direction that considered everything from exterior design, interior, user experience, and materiality.It was an interesting challenge to find the emotional layer of circularity, while staying on brand for Volkswagen. Circularity has a lot of very technical aspects, but as designers we can make circularity tangible. How do you deal with mistakes or failure in the creative process? I view mistakes or failure as an opportunity to test more, to rethink, and to reframe. If a design doesn’t work, how can we regroup and find a solution that’s way more interesting and beyond the obvious? In the creative process there can be a lot of fear associated with going against the grain. What I’ve noticed is that if we stay in that fear space, we close ourselves off to opportunities. It’s important to be in an open space of creativity and curiosity. Allow mistakes and failure to happen. When there is joy in the process and a strong intuition, you produce better results in the end. What advice would you give to aspiring designers, but also anyone who wants to enter the world you inhabit? Great design comes from a constantly growing and inspired mind. Stay curious and know that inspiration comes from everywhere. Embrace your uniqueness, but also be able to evolve from that. Be open to change and to new perspectives. There will be tough feedback and creative disagreements, but the important thing is how you receive those situations. Maintain a mindset of abundance and try to see the positive in anything you do. Finally, as creatives it’s important for us to take time alone to recharge, to reflect, and to work on our magic. When you’re feeling well and thriving individually, your creativity also does. At that point it’s crucial to rejoin the collective, where you have a chance to collaborate and experience the diversity of perspectives that fuels creativity. It can be a tough road for aspiring designers, but I would encourage them to proceed with care and openness, and to leave their fears behind. 

Remember the banana peels, apple cores, and leftover pizza you recently threw in the garbage? Today, your food waste—and your neighbors’—is emitting climate-warming greenhouse gases as it decomposes in a nearby municipal landfill. Buried food scraps and yard waste at 51 dumps across Colorado generate an amount of methane equivalent to driving 1 million gasoline-powered cars for a year. About 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas over a period of 20 years, methane accounts for 11% of global emissions that scientists say are warming the atmosphere and contributing to more intense and severe weather, wildfires, and drought. Landfills are the third-largest source of methane pollution in Colorado, after agriculture and fossil fuel extraction. Draft methane rules released last month by the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment would, for the first time, require some dump operators to measure and quantify methane releases and to fix leaks. The proposal mandates that waste managers install a gas collection system if their dump generates a certain amount of the climate-warming gas.  It also addresses loopholes in federal law that allow waste to sit for five years before such systems are required—even though science has shown that half of all food waste decays within about three and a half years. The draft rule surpasses U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards in the amount of landfill area operators must monitor for emissions. It’s set to be heard by the state’s Air Quality Control Commission in August. Proposed regulations require the elimination of open gas flares—burning emissions directly into the atmosphere—and urge the use of biocovers and biofilters, which rely on bacteria to break down gases. The 70-page draft also calls for more routine and thorough monitoring of a dump surface with advanced technologies like satellites, which recently recorded large plumes of methane escaping from a Denver-area landfill. “We’ve had our eyes opened thanks to technology that has made the invisible, visible—now we know the extent of the problem, which is much greater than what estimates have portrayed,” said Katherine Blauvelt, circular economy director at Industrious Labs, a nonprofit working to decarbonize industry.  “When landfill operators fail to control leaks, we know harmful pollutants are coming along for the ride.” Cancer-causing volatile organic compounds, such as benzene and toluene, escape with methane leaching from landfills. These chemicals also contribute to the formation of lung-damaging ozone pollution, an increasing problem for the 3.6 million people who live in the greater Denver metropolitan area. Indeed, the region along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains ranked sixth in the nation for the most polluted air—with unhealthy ozone levels reported on one out of every 10 days, on average, according to the American Lung Association’s 2025 “State of the Air” report. The state is also woefully behind in its compliance with federal air quality standards. State officials and environmental advocates agree that reducing methane emissions from landfills, which are easier to mitigate than cow burps, for example, is one of the quickest and most efficient ways to slow warming in the short term. “Waste deposited in landfills continues producing methane for decades as it breaks down—and it’s one sector where Colorado has yet to directly take action to reduce these greenhouse gases,” said Tim Taylor, a supervisor in the state’s air pollution control division, in an online hearing last February on the proposed landfill methane rules. Colorado’s draft regulations are similar to those in California, Oregon, Maryland, and Washington, he added. More than 10 landfills in the state are already required under federal rules to have gas collection and control systems. Yet even with such technology in place, disposal facilities routinely exceed federal methane emissions caps. The state’s health department has also identified a dozen municipal solid waste landfills, based on a preliminary analysis, that would be required to put such systems in place under the proposed rules, Zachary Aedo, an agency spokesman, said in an email to Capital & Main. Many of these facilities are operated by counties, some of which expressed concerns about their ability to pay for such systems. “We are a small rural county, and a multimillion-dollar containment system is going to be more than we can build,” testified Delta County Commissioner Craig Fuller at the February hearing. “The financial equation of this whole thing is absolutely mind-boggling—we are struggling as it is to provide health and human services.” Other county officials embraced the proposed tightening of rules. “Landfills across Colorado, including in Eagle County, are leading sources of methane pollution,” said Eagle County Commissioner Matt Scherr in a March 6 statement. “As a local elected official I support a robust rule that embraces advanced technologies to cut pollution, protect public health and help the methane mitigation industry thrive.” For larger landfill companies, like Waste Management, which operates 283 active disposal sites nationwide, figuring out which technology works to best monitor emissions from a dump’s surface is proving a complex challenge. The company is testing technologies at facilities with different topographies and climate fluctuations to understand what causes emissions releases, said Amy Banister, Waste Management senior director of air programs. “Landfills are complicated, emissions vary over time, and we have emissions 24/7,” said Banister at an online meeting last September of a technical group created by Colorado health department officials. “Drones produced a lot of false positives—and we need more work understanding how fixed sensors can be applied in a landfill environment.” State health officials suggested municipalities could offset the costs of installing gas collection systems at disposal sites by converting methane into energy. Several landfill operations in Colorado currently have such waste-to-energy systems—which send power they generate to the state’s power grid. “We are mindful of the costs of complying with this rule and how tipping fees may be impacted,” said Taylor, an air quality supervisor, at the February hearing. “Analyses conducted in other states of their landfill methane rules found there wasn’t an increase in tipping fees as a result of regulations over time.” Tipping fees are paid by those who dispose of waste in a landfill. If operators passed on compliance costs to households, a state analysis found, the yearly average annual fee would increase $22.90 per household. Colorado’s push comes as the EPA issued an enforcement alert in September that found “recurring Clean Air Act compliance issues” at municipal solid waste landfills that led to the “significant release of methane,” based on 100 inspections conducted over three years.  Such violations included improper design and installation of gas collection and control systems, failure to maintain adequate “cover integrity,” and improper monitoring of facilities for emissions. To address gaps in federal regulations, which require operators to measure emissions four times a year by walking in a grid pattern across the face of the landfill with a handheld sensor, Colorado’s draft rules require third-party monitoring. Such measurements must be conducted offsite by an entity approved by the state’s air pollution control division that uses a satellite, aircraft or mobile monitoring platform. The infrequency of such grid walks—which skip spots that operators deem dangerous—contributes to the undercounting of methane emissions from landfills, according to a satellite-based analysis. An international team of scientists estimated potent greenhouse gas emissions from landfills are 50% higher than EPA estimates. Satellites like one operated by nonprofit Carbon Mapper found large methane plumes outside the quarterly monitoring periods over the Tower Landfill in Commerce City, northeast of Denver. The satellite allowed scientists to see parts of the landfill not accessible with traditional monitoring—measurements that found that such landfills are underreporting their methane emissions to state regulators, said Tia Scarpelli, a research scientist and waste sector lead at Carbon Mapper. “Landfill emissions tend to be quite persistent—if a landfill is emitting when it’s first observed, it’s likely to be emitting later on,” she added. Scarpelli cautioned that it’s important for regulators to investigate with operators what was happening on the landfill surface at the time the leak was measured. Tower Landfill’s operator, Allied Waste Systems of Colorado, provided reasons for such large methane releases in a January 2024 report to the state’s health department, including equipment malfunctions. The fix for about 22 emissions events over the federal methane limits detected in August 2023 by surface monitoring: “Soil added as cover maintenance.” Like many dumps across Colorado and the nation, the Tower Landfill is located near a community that’s already disproportionately impacted by emissions from industrial activities. “These landfills are not only driving climate change, they are also driving a public health crisis in our community,” said Guadalupe Solis, director of environmental justice programs at Cultivando, a nonprofit led by Latina and Indigenous women in northern Denver. “The Tower Landfill is near nursing homes, clinics, near schools with majority Hispanic students.” Physicians in the state warned that those who live the closest to dumps suffer the worst health effects from pollutants like benzene and hydrogen sulfide, which are linked to cancer, heart, and other health conditions. “People living near landfills, like myself, my family and my patients, experience higher exposure to air pollution,” testified Dr. Nikita Habermehl, a specialist in pediatric emergency medicine who lives near a landfill in Larimer County, at the February 26 public hearing, “leading to increased rates of respiratory issues and headaches and asthma worsened by poor air quality.” —By Jennifer Oldham, Capital & Main This piece was originally published by Capital & Main, which reports from California on economic, political, and social issues.

The perfectly manicured grass at the pitch of Munich’s Allianz Arena is ready for action thanks in part to its use of a hybrid system of natural and synthetic materials. Paris Saint-Germain and Inter Milan will have the perfect groundwork laid out for them as they face off in the UEFA Champions League Final today (Saturday, May 31, 2025). Let’s recap some team history and developments before we dive into how to watch the big game live. Key stats for Paris Saint-Germain and Inter Milan Inter has three European Champion Clubs’ Cups to their name, which makes them the second most winning Serie A team in the competition’s history. The team was victorious in 2010 and faced defeat in the final in 1967, 1972, and 2022. Paris Saint-Germain has never taken home the trophy. In 2020, the organization came close, but were ultimately defeated by Bayern München in Lisbon. They are determined to upgrade their record during their second appearance in the final. Experts have given them slightly better odds to win it all, but it truly is anyone’s game. How the two teams reached the final In the Champions League, 32 teams are divided into groups of four and face off six times against the other members of their group. The teams are ranked in a point system for wins and draws, with the top two advancing to a knockout round. The third place team is relegated to the Europa League. The remaining 16 teams battle it out for a place in the final. Paris Saint-Germain had a bumpy road to the finals. They were ranked 15th in the league phase but managed to squeak by. Their impressive 10-0 win against Brest helped turn the tide in the knockout round. They went on to beat Liverpool, Aston Villa, and Arsenal to secure their spot. Inter Milan had a smoother ride into the final. The organization finished fourth in the league phase and was only defeated once. They defeated Feyenoord, Bayern, and Barcelona to earn their place in the final. How can I watch or stream the final? For soccer fans in the United States, CBS Sports is the media outlet of the moment, offering 10 hours of Champions League coverage across various platforms. The big game takes place on Saturday, May 31, at 3 p.m. ET. Here’s how coverage breaks down: 1 p.m. ET: Pre-match coverage will begin, live from Munich, on Paramount+ and CBS Sports Golazo Network. 1:30 p.m. ET: Coverage begins on CBS. 3 p.m. ET: The game airs live on CBS and streams on Paramount+. CBS is available for traditional cable viewers and free with an over-the-air antenna. Cable subscribers can also watch CBS live through the CBS website. Cord-cutters (or anyone else) also have the option to subscribe to Paramount+, and may be eligible for a free trial. The Spanish-language channel TUDN is also an option. For football fans in the UK, tune into TNT Sports or stream on discovery+ at 8 p.m. BST.

Until last October, Argentinian musical duo Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso were more or less a regional act. Known for their experimental blend of Latin trap, pop, and rap, the pair had a fanbase, but still weren’t cracking more than 3,000 daily streams across services like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube. Within a week, they shot up 4,700%—hitting 222,000 daily streams—according to exclusive data firm Luminate, which powers the Billboard charts. Suddenly Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso were global pop stars.  What changed? On Oct. 4, the pair were featured in a Tiny Desk Concert, part of NPR’s 17-year-old video series featuring musicians performing stripped-down sets behind an office desk in the cramped Washington, D.C. headquarters of the public broadcaster.  In the concert video, the artists play five songs from their debut album Baño Maria, which came out last April. Paco’s raspy voice emerges from underneath a puffy blue trapper hat while Ca7riel sports an over-the-top pout and a vest made of stitched-together heart-shaped plush toys. The pair sing entirely in Spanish, backed by their Argentinian bandmates (sporting shirts screenprinted with their visas) and an American horn section. The duo’s performance quickly took off across the internet. Within five days, it had racked up more than 1.5 million views on YouTube, and hit 11 million in little more than a month. It also reverberated across social media: the NPR Music Instagram post garnering nearly 900,000 likes, and TikToks clips garnered hundreds of thousands of views.  In a year that featured Tiny Desk performances from buzzy stars like Chappell Roan and Sabrina Carpenter, as well as established acts like Chaka Khan and Nelly Furtado, Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s concert was the most-watched of 2024. It currently sits at 36 million views.  That virality translated to an influx of bookings for the duo, including a performance at Coachella in April, and upcoming slots at Glastonbury in June, FujiRock Japan in July, and Lollapalooza and Outside Lands in August. Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s global tour includes sold-out dates at Mexico’s 20,000-capacity Palacio de los Deportes and Chile’s 14,000-seat Movistar Areana—and was previewed by an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon in April.  “Through Tiny Desk, we’ve noticed media approaching us, promoters being very interested in offering their spaces and festivals, and many media outlets opening doors to show us to the world,” says Jonathan Izquierdo, the band’s Spain-based tour manager who began working with the duo shortly after the Tiny Desk Concert debuted. “We’ve managed to sell out summer arena shows in record time and we’re constantly adding new concerts. Promoters are knocking on our doors to get the Tiny Desk effect.” Bobby Carter [Photo: Fenn Paider/courtesy NPR] Tiny Desk, Big Influence The Tiny Desk effect is something Bobby Carter, NPR Tiny Desk host and series producer, has seen firsthand. Carter has been at NPR for 25 years, including the past 11 on the Tiny Desk team. He took the reins when Bob Boilen, the longtime All Songs Considered host who launched Tiny Desk in 2008, retired in 2023.  The series—which now has more than 1,200 videos—began as an internet-first way for Boilen to showcase performances from musicians that were more intimate than what happens in bigger concert venues. The first installment, featuring folk artist Laura Gibson, went up on YouTube. Today, the concerts are posted on the NPR site with a writeup and credits, as well as YouTube, where NPR Music has 11 million followers. NPR Music also clips installments on Instagram, where it has 3 million followers.  In the early days, NPR staff reached out to touring bands to secure bookings. Acts coming through DC could often be cajoled into filming an installment before heading out to their venues for that night’s sound check. Now, musicians come to DC just for the chance to record in NPR’s offices.  “We don’t have to worry about tours anymore,” Carter says. “Labels and artists are willing to come in solely for a Tiny Desk performance. They understand the impact that a really good Tiny Desk concert can have on an artist’s career.” Early on, the stripped-down nature of the Tiny Desk—artists can’t use any audio processing or voice modulation—lent itself to rock, folk, and indie acts. But a 2014 concert with T-Pain, in which the famously autotune-heavy singer unveiled an impressive set of pipes, showed how artists from a broader array of genres could shine behind the Tiny Desk.  “Everyone knows at this point that they’re going to have to do something different in our space,” Carter says. “It’s a bigger ask for hip-hop acts and electronic acts, but most artists now understand how important it can be if they nail it.” Carter highlights rapper Doechii as an artist who overhauled her sound for her Tiny Desk concert in December. Doechii’s all-female backing band used trumpet, saxophone, guitar, and bass to transform songs from her mixtape Alligator Bites Never Heal for the live setting. “If you listen to the recorded version of her music, it’s nothing like what you saw in that Tiny Desk,” Carter says.  Clips of Doechii’s Tiny Desk virtuosity lit up social media, introducing the ‘swamp princess’ to new fans. The concert even inspired a viral parody, with writer-director-comedian Gus Heagary pretending to be an NPR staffer watching the performance.    Reimagining Old Favorites It isn’t just emerging acts that totally revamp their sound for a Tiny Desk opportunity. Established artists like Usher, Justin Timberlake, and Cypress Hill have followed T-Pain’s lead and used NPR’s offices to showcase reimagined versions of some of their most popular songs. When Juvenile recorded his installment in June 2023, he was backed by horns and saxophones, a violin and cello, and John Batiste on melodica. The New Orleans rapper played an acoustic version of “Back That Azz Up” twice at the audience’s request—the first encore in the series’ history.  “I love what has happened with hip hop [on Tiny Desk],” Carter says. He explains that artists now approach the concert with the mindset: ‘I have to really rethink what I’ve been doing for however long I’ve been doing it, and present it in a whole new way.”  Tiny Desk has also helped musicians like Juvenile, gospel artist Marvin Sapp, and percussionist Sheila E to reach new audiences while reminding listeners they’re still making music. “We’re helping artists to re-emerge,” Carter says, “tapping into legacy acts and evergreen artists [to help] breathe new life into their careers.” In many ways, Tiny Desk now occupies a niche once filled by MTV Unplugged—but for the generation that has replaced cable with YouTube and streaming.   “Maybe 10, 15, 20 years ago, all of our favorite artists had this watershed moment in terms of a live performance,” Carter says. “Back in the day it was MTV Unplugged. SNL is still doing their thing. But when you think about the generation now that lives on YouTube, some of these Tiny Desk performances are going to be the milestone that people point to when it comes to live performances.” Building a Diverse Audience When Carter talks about Tiny Desk concerts reaching a new generation of listeners, it’s not conjecture. He notes that the NPR Music YouTube channel’s 11 million subscribers are “as young and diverse as it gets. It’s almost half people of color [and] much younger than the audience that listens to NPR on air, which is an audience NPR has been trying to tap for a long time,” he says.  That diversity informs some of the special series that Tiny Desk produces. The Juvenile video was part of Carter’s second run of concerts recorded for Black Music Month, in June. Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s video was tied to El Tiny, a Latin-focused series that debuts during Latin Heritage Month (from mid September to mid October) and is programmed by Tiny Desk producer and Alt.Latino host AnaMaria Sayer.  Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s tour manager, Izquierdo, has worked with artists featured in the series before. He says Tiny Desk is crucial for Latin American artists trying to break through. “I’ve realized that for U.S. radio, Latin music benefits from Tiny Desk,” he says. The Tiny Desk audience’s broad demographics are also increasingly reflected in its broader programming. Bad Bunny’s April installment took his reggaeton-inspired songs from recent album Debi Tirar Mas Fotos to their acoustic roots, using an array of traditional Puerto Rican, Latin American, and Caribbean instruments, such as the cuatro puertorriqueño, tiple, güicharo, and bongos.  “[Our] audience informs a whole lot of what we do,” Carter says. I get so many pointers from YouTube comments like ‘Have you heard of this artist?’ We’re watching all that stuff because it helps us stay sharp.” Tiny Desk heard round the world With a strong global audience, Tiny Desk has been expanding into Asia. In 2023, NPR struck a licensing deal with South Korean Telecom LG U+ and production company Something Special to produce Tiny Desk Korea for television. Last year, NPR inked a deal with the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) to launch Tiny Desk Concerts Japan. “We’re really expanding in terms of global reach,” Carter says.  Here in the States, Carter and Sayer recently launched Tiny Desk Radio, a series that will revisit some of the series’ notable installments, sharing behind-the-scenes stories from their productions and playing the audio from the concerts “Our engineers put a lot of time and effort into making sure that we sound great,” Carter says. “I hear it a lot—people tell me they prefer an artist’s Tiny Desk over anything.” That’s something Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso clearly have on their mind as they navigate the Tiny Desk effect and a new level of recognition (their daily streams haven’t dipped below 50,000 a day since the beginning of the year). The duo released an EP in February, Papota, which features four new songs, plus the recorded versions of their pared-down Tiny Desk performances. They also released a short film that recreates their Tiny Desk performance—this time in a Buenos Aires diner. One of the themes of the EP is the pair wrestling with the implications of their viral success. On the song Impostor, Ca7riel asks “¿Y ahora que vamos hacer?/El tiny desk me jodio” (What do we do now? Tiny Desk fucked me up.) It’s an overstatement, but an acknowledgment that the path they’re now on ran directly through the NPR offices. 

New York City’s Brooklyn-Queens Expressway is falling apart. Built between 1946 and 1964, the urban highway runs 12.1 miles through the heart of the two boroughs to connect on either end with the interstate highway system—a relic of midcentury car-oriented infrastructure, and a prime example of the dwindling lifespan of roads built during that time.  The degradation is most visible—and most pressing—in a section running alongside Brooklyn Heights known as the triple cantilever. This 0.4-mile section, completed in 1954, is unique among U.S. highways in that it juts out from the side of a hill and stacks the two directions of traffic on balcony-like decks, one slightly overhanging the other. A third level holds a well-loved park, the Brooklyn Heights Promenade.  This unusual layer cake of a freeway was a marvel of engineering in its day, though not without controversy. Masterminded by Robert Moses, the city’s all-powerful, often ruthless city planner for more than four decades, the roadway bisects working-class and immigrant neighborhoods that grapple with the health and environmental fallout to this day. Like the reputation of the man who built it, the triple cantilever has aged poorly. Its narrow width, (33.5 feet for the roadway in either direction) has made all but the most basic maintenance incredibly difficult, and its 71-year-old structure is constantly battered by the ever heavier automobiles and trucks. Designed to accommodate around 47,000 vehicles per day, it now carries more than three times that amount. Deteriorating deck joints and failing steel-reinforced concrete have led many to worry the triple cantilever is on the verge of collapse. An expert panel warned in 2020 that the triple cantilever could be unusable by 2026, and only then did interim repairs get made to keep it standing. [Photo: Alex Potemkin/Getty Images] The mounting concern comes amid a 50-year decline in direct government spending on infrastructure in the U.S., according to a recent analysis by Citigroup. Simply maintaining existing infrastructure is a challenge, the report notes. Meanwhile, the American Society of Civil Engineers’ grade for the country’s infrastructure has improved, from a D+ in 2017 to a C in 2025. Now even private credit firms are circling: As reported in Bloomberg, Apollo Global Management estimates that a boom in infrastructure deals help could grow the private debt market up to a staggering $40 trillion.   Independent urban designer Marc Wouters has an idea on how to fix BQE’s cantilever. He’s been working on it for years. “My process is that I always interview people in the community before I do any drawings,” he says. “So I really have listened to pretty much everybody over the past few years.” Unsolicited and developed in his own spare time, Wouters has designed an alternative for the triple cantilever that he named the BQE Streamline Plan. BQE Streamline Plan [Image: courtesy Marc Wouters | Studios/©2025] His concept, based on decades of experience in urban planning, infrastructure, and resilience projects in communities across the country, is relatively simple: extend the width of the two traffic-bearing cantilevers and add support beams to their outside edge, move both directions of traffic onto four lanes on the first level, and turn the second level into a large freeway cap park. Instead of major rebuilding efforts, Wouters’s proposal is more of a reinforcement and expansion, with a High Line-style park plopped on top. Though he’s not an engineer, Wouters is confident that his design would shift enough strain off the existing structure to allow it to continue functioning for the foreseeable future. (What actual engineers think remains to be seen.) “What I’ve done is come up with a plan that happens to be much less invasive, faster to build, a lot cheaper, and it encompasses a lot of what the community wants,” he says. “Yet it still handles the same capacity as the highway does right now.” So what will it take for this outsider’s idea to be considered a viable design alternative? This idea had been brewing in his mind for years. Wouters, who lives near the triple cantilever section of the BQE in Brooklyn Heights, has followed the highway’s planning process for more than a decade.  As complex infrastructure projects go, this one is particularly convoluted. The BQE is overseen by both the state of New York and New York City, among others, with the city in charge of the 1.5-mile section that includes the triple cantilever. This dual ownership has complicated the management of the highway and its funding. The city and the state have launched several efforts over the years to reimagine the highway’s entire length. In winter 2018, the city’s Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) released two proposals to address the ailing cantilever. Not seeing what they wanted from either one, Brooklyn Heights Association, a nonprofit neighborhood group, retained Wouters and his studio to develop an alternative design. He suggested building a temporary parallel bypass that would allow a full closure and repair of the triple cantilever. That proposal, along with competing ideas developed under the previous mayoral administration, went by the wayside in 2022, when the latest BQE redesign process commenced. Wouters found himself following yet another community feedback and planning process for the triple cantilever. The ideas being proposed by the city’s DOT this time around included a plan that would chew into the hillside that currently supports the triple cantilever to move the first tier of traffic directly underneath the second, and add a large girding structure on its open end to hold it all up. Other options included reshaping the retaining wall that currently holds up the triple cantilever, moving traffic below grade into a wide tunnel, or tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding from scratch. Each would be time-consuming and disruptive, and many of them cut into another well-loved public space immediately adjacent to the triple cantilever, Brooklyn Bridge Park. None of these options has anything close to unanimous support. And any of them will cost more than $1 billion—a price tag that hits much harder after the Federal Highway Administration rejected an $800 million grant proposal for fixing the BQE back in early 2024. BQE Streamline Plan [Image: courtesy Marc Wouters | Studios/©2025] Wouters is no highway zealot. In fact, he’s worked on a project heading into construction in Syracuse that will replace an underutilized inner-city highway with a more appropriately sized boulevard and developable land. But he felt sure there was a better way forward—a concept that would work as well in practice as on paper. “I just kept going to meetings and waiting to see what I thought was a progressive solution,” Wouters says. Unimpressed and frustrated, he set out to design it himself. Wouters released the Streamline Plan in March. The concept quickly gathered interest, receiving a flurry of local news coverage. He has since met with various elected officials to discuss it. But as elegant as Wouters’s concept may be, some stakeholders remain unconvinced that the city should be going all in on a reinterpretation of the triple cantilever. What might be more appropriate, critics say, is to make necessary fixes now to keep the triple cantilever safe and functional, and to spend more time thinking about whether this section of highway is even what the city needs in the long term. A group of local organizations is calling for a more comprehensive reconsideration of the BQE under the premise that its harms may be outnumbering its benefits. Launched last spring, the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway Environmental Justice Coalition wants any planning for the future of the BQE to include efforts to address its health and environmental impacts on neighboring communities and to seek an alternative that reconnects communities that have been divided by the corridor. One member of this coalition is the Riders Alliance, a nonprofit focused on improving public transit in New York. Danny Pearlstein, the group’s policy and communications director, says implementing a major redesign of the triple cantilever would just reinforce car dependency in a place that’s actually well served by public transit. The environmental justice coalition’s worry is that rebuilding this one section in a long-term fashion could make it harder for change across the length of the entire BQE and could increase the environmental impact the highway has on the communities that surround it. “This is not just one neighborhood. This is communities up and down the corridor that don’t resemble each other very much in income or background who are united and are standing together for something that’s transformative, rather than doubling down on the old ways,” Pearlstein says. [Photo: ©NYC DOT] Lara Birnback is executive director of the Brooklyn Heights Association, representing a neighborhood of roughly 20,000 people. Her organization, which worked directly with Wouters in the past, is circumspect about his latest concept. “It’s certainly more interesting and responsive to the kinds of things that the community has been asking for when thinking about the BQE. It’s more of those things than we’ve seen from any of the designs that New York City DOT has presented to us through their engagement process,” she says. “But at the end of the day, it’s still a way of preserving more or less the status quo of the BQE as a major interstate highway running through the borough.” She argues it makes more sense to patch up the triple cantilever and use the extra years of service that buys to do a more radical rethinking of the BQE’s future. (For example, one 2020 proposal by the Brooklyn-based architecture studio Light and Air proposed a simple intervention of installing buttresses on the open-air side of the triple cantilever, propping it up with a relatively small addition of material.) “We really strongly encourage the city to move forward immediately with a more short-term stabilization plan for the cantilever, with repairs that would last, for example, 20 to 25 years rather than spending billions and billions of dollars rebuilding it for the next 100 years,” Birnback says. Birnback says a major rebuilding plan like the one Wouters is proposing—for all its community benefits—could end up doing more harm to the city. “I think going forward now with a plan that both embeds the status quo and most likely forecloses on the possibility of real transformation across the corridor is a mistake,” she says. NYC DOT expects to begin its formal environmental review process this year, laying the necessary groundwork for deciding on a plan for what to do with the triple cantilever, either for the short term or the long term. The environmental process will evaluate all concepts equally, according to DOT spokesperson Vincent Barone, who notes that the department is required to review and respond to all feedback that comes in through that process. There is technically nothing holding back Wouters’s proposal from being one of the alternatives considered. And he may have some important political support to help make that happen. Earlier this month, Brooklyn’s Community District 2 board formally supported the plan. They are calling for the city’s transportation department to include it in the BQE’s formal environmental review process when it starts later this year. [Photo: Sinisa Kukic/Getty Images] Wouters argues that his proposal solves the pressing structural problems of the triple cantilever while also opening resources to deal with the highway’s big picture challenges. “The several hundred million dollars of savings is now funding that could go to other parts of the BQE. And there are other parts that are really struggling,” he says. “I’m always thinking about the whole length and about all these other communities, not just this one.” With a new presidential administration and a mayoral primary election in June, what happens with the triple cantilever is very much up in the air. But if the environmental review process begins as planned this year, it only makes sense for every option to fall under consideration. What gets built—or torn down, or reconstructed, or reinterpreted—could reshape part of New York City for generations.

When the computer or phone you’re using right now blinks its last blink and you drop it off for recycling, do you know what happens? At the recycling center, powerful magnets will pull out steel. Spinning drums will toss aluminum into bins. Copper wires will get neatly bundled up for resale. But as the conveyor belt keeps rolling, tiny specks of valuable, lesser-known materials such as gallium, indium, and tantalum will be left behind. Those tiny specks are critical materials. They’re essential for building new technology, and they’re in short supply in the U.S. They could be reused, but there’s a problem: Current recycling methods make recovering critical minerals from e-waste too costly or hazardous, so many recyclers simply skip them. Sadly, most of these hard-to-recycle materials end up buried in landfills or get mixed into products like cement. But it doesn’t have to be this way. New technology is starting to make a difference. As demand for these critical materials keeps growing, discarded electronics can become valuable resources. My colleagues and I at West Virginia University are developing a new technology to change how we recycle. Instead of using toxic chemicals, our approach uses electricity, making it safer, cleaner, and more affordable to recover critical materials from electronics. How much e-waste are we talking about? Americans generated about 2.7 million tons of electronic waste in 2018, according to the latest federal data. Including uncounted electronics, the U.S. recycles only about 15% of its total e-waste, suggests a survey by the United Nations. Even worse, nearly half the electronics that people in Northern America sent to recycling centers end up shipped overseas. They often land in scrapyards, where workers may use dangerous methods like burning or leaching with harsh chemicals to pull out valuable metals. These practices can harm both the environment and workers’ health. That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency restricts these methods in the U.S. The tiny specks matter Critical minerals are in most of the technology around you. Every phone screen has a super-thin layer of a material called indium tin oxide. LEDs glow because of a metal called gallium. Tantalum stores energy in tiny electronic parts called capacitors. All of these materials are flagged as “high risk” on the U.S. Department of Energy’s critical materials list. That means the U.S. relies heavily on these materials for important technologies, but their supply could easily be disrupted by conflicts, trade disputes, or shortages. Right now, just a few countries, including China, control most of the mining, processing, and recovery of these materials, making the U.S. vulnerable if those countries decide to limit exports or raise prices. These materials aren’t cheap, either. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that gallium was priced between $220 to $500 per kilogram in 2024. That’s 50 times more expensive than common metals like copper, at $9.48 per kilogram in 2024. Revolutionizing recycling with microwaves At West Virginia University’s Department of Mechanical, Materials, and Aerospace Engineering, I and materials scientist Edward Sabolsky asked a simple question: Could we find a way to heat only specific parts of electronic waste to recover these valuable materials? If we could focus the heat on just the tiny specks of critical minerals, we might be able to recycle them easily and efficiently. The solution we found: microwaves. This equipment isn’t very different from the microwave ovens you use to heat food at home, just bigger and more powerful. The basic science is the same: Electromagnetic waves cause electrons to oscillate, creating heat. In our approach, though, we’re not heating water molecules like you do when cooking. Instead, we heat carbon, the black residue that collects around a candle flame or car tailpipe. Carbon heats up much faster in a microwave than water does. But don’t try this at home; your kitchen microwave wasn’t designed for such high temperatures. In our recycling method, we first shred the electronic waste, mix it with materials called fluxes that trap impurities, and then heat the mixture with microwaves. The microwaves rapidly heat the carbon that comes from the plastics and adhesives in the e-waste. This causes the carbon to react with the tiny specks of critical materials. The result: a tiny piece of pure, sponge-like metal about the size of a grain of rice. This metal can then be easily separated from leftover waste using filters. So far, in our laboratory tests, we have successfully recovered about 80% of the gallium, indium, and tantalum from e-waste, at purities between 95% and 97%. We have also demonstrated how it can be integrated with existing recycling processes. Why the Department of Defense is interested Our recycling technology got its start with help from a program funded by the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. Many important technologies, from radar systems to nuclear reactors, depend on these special materials. While the Department of Defense uses less of them than the commercial market, they are a national security concern. We’re planning to launch larger pilot projects next to test the method on smartphone circuit boards, LED lighting parts, and server cards from data centers. These tests will help us fine-tune the design for a bigger system that can recycle tons of e-waste per hour instead of just a few pounds. That could mean producing up to 50 pounds of these critical minerals per hour from every ton of e-waste processed. If the technology works as expected, we believe this approach could help meet the nation’s demand for critical materials. How to make e-waste recycling common One way e-waste recycling could become more common is if Congress held electronics companies responsible for recycling their products and recovering the critical materials inside. Closing loopholes that allow companies to ship e-waste overseas, instead of processing it safely in the U.S., could also help build a reserve of recovered critical minerals. But the biggest change may come from simple economics. Once technology becomes available to recover these tiny but valuable specks of critical materials quickly and affordably, the U.S. can transform domestic recycling and take a big step toward solving its shortage of critical materials. Terence Musho is an associate professor of engineering at West Virginia University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You can’t get a job without experience, but you can’t get experience without a job. The good news is, it’s not as impossible as it sounds.

Few issues in the U.S. today are as controversial as diversity, equity, and inclusion—commonly referred to as DEI. Although the term didn’t come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in America’s founding documents, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action policies, as well as movements for racial justice, gender equity, disability rights, veterans, and immigrants. These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational, and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy. Critics argue that DEI is antidemocratic, that it fosters ideological conformity, and that it leads to discriminatory initiatives, which they say disadvantage white people and undermine meritocracy. Those defending DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages critical thinking and promotes democracy—and that attacks on DEI amount to a retreat from long-standing civil rights law. Yet missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn’t, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy? As a sociologist, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let’s look at the research. Who gains from DEI? In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including revenue, profitability, and worker satisfaction. Businesses with diverse workforces also have an edge in innovation, recruitment, and competitiveness, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including age, race, and ethnicity, and gender. A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a 2021 survey found. So-called “inclusive consumers” tend to be female, younger, and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the resulting backlash contributed to a sales decline. But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it’s about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc. Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities refused to admit women until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, started admitting women in 1982. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven’t just closed the gender gap in higher education—they outpace men in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, especially white women, by expanding workforce access. Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students—a number that has increased by 125% since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth. The 1965 Immigration Act also exemplifies DEI’s impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from Asia, Africa, southern and eastern Europe, and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were highly educated, and their presence has boosted U.S. productivity and innovation. Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more profitable and productive as a result of immigrants. What does DEI cost? While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an estimated $7.5 billion on DEI programs. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including $38.7 million by the Department of Health and Human Services and another $86.5 million by the Department of Defense. The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order banning DEI practices in federal agencies—one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently facing legal challenges. More than 30 states have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing meritocracy with mediocrity. But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a 2023 McKinsey & Company report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in science and technology education leads to lowering standards aren’t backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are increasingly pointing out that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves. That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice have recently warned employers that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reverse discrimination claims, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to lower the burden of proof needed by complainants for such cases. The issue remains legally unsettled. But while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the unpaid volunteer work that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself. What lies ahead for DEI? People’s fears of DEI are partly rooted in demographic anxiety. Since the U.S. Census Bureau projected in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage has amplified white fears of displacement. Research indicates many white men experience this change as a crisis of identity and masculinity, particularly amid economic shifts such as the decline of blue-collar work. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe DEI policies disadvantage white men than white women. At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be underemployed and living in poverty regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men—just 83.6% of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at $976,800 and $1.2 million, respectively. Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually. In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence. Rodney Coates is a professor of critical race and ethnic studies at Miami University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.