Inside Apple’s high-gloss standoff with AI ambition and the uncanny choreography of WWDC 2025There was a time when watching an Apple keynote — like Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone in 2007, the masterclass of all masterclasses in product launching — felt like watching a tightrope act. There was suspense. Live demos happened — sometimes they failed, and when they didn’t, the applause was real, not piped through a Dolby mix.These days, that tension is gone. Since 2020, in the wake of the pandemic, Apple events have become pre-recorded masterworks: drone shots sweeping over Apple Park, transitions smoother than a Pixar short, and executives delivering their lines like odd, IRL spatial personas. They move like human renderings: poised, confident, and just robotic enough to raise a brow. The kind of people who, if encountered in real life, would probably light up half a dozen red flags before a handshake is even offered. A case in point: the official “Liquid Glass” UI demo — it’s visually stunning, yes, but also uncanny, like a concept reel that forgot it needed to ship.https://medium.com/media/fcb3b16cc42621ba32153aff80ea1805/hrefAnd that’s the paradox. Not only has Apple trimmed down the content of WWDC, it’s also polished the delivery into something almost inhumanly controlled. Every keynote beat feels engineered to avoid risk, reduce friction, and glide past doubt. But in doing so, something vital slips away: the tension, the spontaneity, the sense that the future is being made, not just performed.Just one year earlier, WWDC 2024 opened with a cinematic cold open “somewhere over California”:https://medium.com/media/f97f45387353363264d99c341d4571b0/hrefPhil Schiller piloting an Apple-branded plane, iPod in hand, muttering “I’m getting too old for this stuff.” A perfect mix of Lethal Weapon camp and a winking message that yes, Classic-Apple was still at the controls — literally — flying its senior leadership straight toward Cupertino. Out the hatch, like high-altitude paratroopers of optimism, leapt the entire exec team, with Craig Federighi, always the go-to for Apple’s auto-ironic set pieces, leading the charge, donning a helmet literally resembling his own legendary mane. It was peak-bold, bizarre, and unmistakably Apple. That intro now reads like the final act of full-throttle confidence.This year’s WWDC offered a particularly crisp contrast. Aside from the new intro — which features Craig Federighi drifting an F1-style race car across the inner rooftop ring of Apple Park as a “therapy session”, a not-so-subtle nod to the upcoming Formula 1 blockbuster but also to the accountability for the failure to deliver the system-wide AI on time — WWDC 2025 pulled back dramatically. The new “Apple Intelligence” was introduced in a keynote with zero stumbles, zero awkward transitions, and visuals so pristine they could have been rendered on a Vision Pro. Not only had the scope of WWDC been trimmed down to safer talking points, but even the tone had shifted — less like a tech summit, more like a handsomely lit containment-mode seminar. And that, perhaps, was the problem. The presentation wasn’t a reveal — it was a performance. And performances can be edited in post. Demos can’t.So when Apple in march 2025 quietly admitted, for the first time, in a formal press release addressed to reporters like John Gruber, that the personalized Siri and system-wide AI features would be delayed — the reaction wasn’t outrage. It was something subtler: disillusionment. Gruber’s response cracked the façade wide open. His post opened a slow but persistent wave of unease, rippling through developer Slack channels and private comment threads alike. John Gruber’s reaction, published under the headline “Something is rotten in the State of Cupertino”, was devastating. His critique opened the floodgates to a wave of murmurs and public unease among developers and insiders, many of whom had begun to question what was really happening at the helm of key divisions central to Apple’s future.Many still believe Apple is the only company truly capable of pulling off hardware-software integrated AI at scale. But there’s a sense that the company is now operating in damage-control mode. The delay didn’t just push back a feature — it disrupted the entire strategic arc of WWDC 2025. What could have been a milestone in system-level AI became a cautious sidestep, repackaged through visual polish and feature tweaks. The result: a presentation focused on UI refinements and safe bets, far removed from the sweeping revolution that had been teased as the main selling point for promoting the iPhone 16 launch, “Built for Apple Intelligence”.That tension surfaced during Joanna Stern’s recent live interview with Craig Federighi and Greg Joswiak. These are two of Apple’s most media-savvy execs, and yet, in a setting where questions weren’t scripted, you could see the seams. Their usual fluency gave way to something stiffer. More careful. Less certain. And even the absences speak volumes: for the first time in a decade, no one from Apple’s top team joined John Gruber’s Talk Show at WWDC. It wasn’t a scheduling fluke — nor a petty retaliation for Gruber’s damning March article. It was a retreat — one that Stratechery’s Ben Thompson described as exactly that: a strategic fallback, not a brave reset.Meanwhile, the keynote narrative quietly shifted from AI ambition to UI innovation: new visual effects, tighter integration, call screening. Credit here goes to Alan Dye — Apple VP of Human Interface Design and one of the last remaining members of Jony Ive’s inner circle not yet absorbed into LoveFrom — whose long-arc work on interface aesthetics, from the early stages of the Dynamic Island onward, is finally starting to click into place. This is classic Apple: refinement as substance, design as coherence. But it was meant to be the cherry on top of a much deeper AI-system transformation — not the whole sundae. All useful. All safe. And yet, the thing that Apple could uniquely deliver — a seamless, deeply integrated, user-controlled and privacy-safe Apple Intelligence — is now the thing it seems most reluctant to show.There is no doubt the groundwork has been laid. And to Apple’s credit, Jason Snell notes that the company is shifting gears, scaling ambitions to something that feels more tangible. But in scaling back the risk, something else has been scaled back too: the willingness to look your audience of stakeholders, developers and users live, in the eye, and show the future for how you have carefully crafted it and how you can put it in the market immediately, or in mere weeks. Showing things as they are, or as they will be very soon. Rehearsed, yes, but never faked.Even James Dyson’s live demo of a new vacuum showed more courage. No camera cuts. No soft lighting. Just a human being, showing a thing. It might have sucked, literally or figuratively. But it didn’t. And it stuck. That’s what feels missing in Cupertino.Some have started using the term glasslighting — a coined pun blending Apple’s signature glassy aesthetics with the soft manipulations of marketing, like a gentle fog of polished perfection that leaves expectations quietly disoriented. It’s not deception. It’s damage control. But that instinct, understandable as it is, doesn’t build momentum. It builds inertia. And inertia doesn’t sell intelligence. It only delays the reckoning.Before the curtain falls, it’s hard not to revisit the uncanny polish of Apple’s speakers presence. One might start to wonder whether Apple is really late on AI — or whether it’s simply developed such a hyper-advanced internal model that its leadership team has been replaced by real-time human avatars, flawlessly animated, fed directly by the Neural Engine. Not the constrained humanity of two floating eyes behind an Apple Vision headset, but full-on flawless embodiment — if this is Apple’s augmented AI at work, it may be the only undisclosed and underpromised demo actually shipping.OS30 live demoMeanwhile, just as Apple was soft-pedaling its A.I. story with maximum visual polish, a very different tone landed from across the bay: Sam Altman and Jony Ive, sitting in a bar, talking about the future.https://medium.com/media/5cdea73d7fde0b538e038af1990afa44/hrefNo stage. No teleprompter. No uncanny valley. Just two “old friends”, with one hell of a budget, quietly sketching the next era of computing. A vision Apple once claimed effortlessly.There’s still the question of whether Apple, as many hope, can reclaim — and lock down — that leadership for itself. A healthy dose of competition, at the very least, can only help.Too big, fail too was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Botox injections used to be a secret for (largely) women in their 40s and 50s. But growing numbers of (largely) women in their 20s and 30s are turning to “baby Botox,” or smaller doses that are intended to prevent aging rather than combat it.Baby Botox is just one intervention that doctors say younger people now frequently seek, and some view the trend with concern. Dr. Michelle Hure, a physician specializing in dermatology and dermatopathology, says younger patients aren’t considering the cost of procedures that require lifetime maintenance, and are expressing dissatisfaction with their looks to a degree that borders on the absurd.Hure traces the demand for “baby Botox” and other procedures to the start of the pandemic.“Everyone was basically chronically online,” she told Vox. “They were on Zoom, they were looking at themselves, and there was the rise of of TikTok and the filters and people were really seeing these perceived flaws that either aren’t there or are so minimal and just normal anatomy. And they have really made it front and center where it affects them. It affects their daily life and I really feel that it has become more of a pathological thing.”Hure spoke to Today, Explained co-host Noel King about the rise of “baby Botox” and her concerns with the cosmetic dermatology industry. An excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You told us about a patient that you saw yesterday, and you said you probably wouldn’t keep her on because her mentality really worried you. Would you tell me about that young woman?I had this patient who was mid-20s, and really a beautiful girl. I [didn’t] see a lot of signs of aging on her face, but she was coming in for Botox. There wasn’t a lot for me to treat. And at the end of the session she was asking me, “So what do you think about my nasolabial folds?”Basically, it’s the fold that goes from the corner of your nose down to the corner of your mouth. It’s the barrier between the upper lip and your cheek, and when you smile it kind of folds. Of course, the more you age, the more of the line will be left behind when you’re not smiling. And she was pointing to her cheek as if there was something there, but there was nothing there. And so I had to tell her, “Well, I don’t see that, you’re perfect.” It’s a phantom nasolabial fold. It didn’t exist.That sort of mentality where someone is perceiving a flaw that is absolutely not there — providers need to say no. Unfortunately, they’re incentivized not to. Especially if you have a cosmetic office, if you’re a med spa, if you have a cosmetic derm or plastic surgery office, of course you’re incentivized to do what the patient wants. Well, I’m not going to do that. That’s not what I do.That means you may get paid for seeing her in that visit, but you’re not getting paid for putting filler in her face. I think what I hear you saying is other doctors would have done that.Absolutely. One hundred percent. I know this for a fact because many times those patients will come to my office to get that filler dissolved because they don’t like it. In the larger practices or practices that are private equity-owned, which is a huge problem in medicine, you are absolutely meant to sell as many products, as many procedures as possible. Oftentimes I was told to sell as much filler as possible, because every syringe is several hundred dollars. And then if they’re there, talk them into a laser. Talk them into this, talk them into that. Then you become a salesman. For my skin check patients, I’m looking for skin cancer. I’m counseling them on how to take care of their skin. I was told, “Don’t talk to them about using sunscreen, because we want them to get skin cancer and come back.”I was pulled out of the room by my boss and reprimanded for explaining why it’s so important to use sunscreen. And so this is why I couldn’t do it anymore. I had to start my own office and be on my own. I can’t do that. That goes against everything that I believe in, in my oath. Because there is potential harm on many different levels for cosmetic procedures.What are the risks to giving someone a cosmetic procedure that they don’t really need?This is a medical procedure. There is always risk for any type of intervention, right? What gets me is, like, Nordstrom is talking about having injections in their stores. This is ridiculous! This is a medical procedure. You can get infection, you can get vascular occlusion that can lead to death of the tissue overlying where you inject. It can lead to blindness. This is a big deal. It’s fairly safe if you know what you’re doing. But not everyone knows what they’re doing and knows how to handle the complications that can come about. Honestly, I feel like the psychological aspect of it is a big problem. At some point you become dependent, almost, on these procedures to either feel happy or feel good about yourself. And at what point is it not going to be enough? One of my colleagues actually coined this term. It’s called perception drift. At some point, you will do these little, little, incremental tweaks until you look like a different person. And you might look very abnormal. So even if someone comes to me for something that is legitimate, it’s still: Once you start, it’s going to be hard for you to stop. If you’re barely able to scrimp together enough to pay for that one thing, and you have it done, great. What about all the rest of your life that you’re going to want to do something? Are you going to be able to manage it?I wonder how all of this makes you think about your profession. Most people get into medicine, it has always been my assumption, to be helpful. And you’ve laid out a world in which procedures are being done that are not only not helpful, they could be dangerous. And you don’t seem to like it very much.This is why it is a smaller and smaller percentage of what I do in my office. I love cosmetics to an extent, right? I love to make people love how they look. But when you start using cosmetics as a tool to make them feel better about themselves in a major way, it’s a slippery slope. It should be more of a targeted thing, not making you look like an entirely different person because society has told you you can’t age. It’s really disturbing to me.See More:

Sophie Rucker had been living and working in London for five years when a trip to a yoga training school in Bali presented her with an alternative to the rat race. Despite enjoying life in London, witnessing digital nomads balance work with sun, sea, and relaxed vibes in the Indonesian island province prompted her to pursue more freelance work.  At the start of 2020, having set herself up as a communications strategist for NGOs and social impact organisations, Sophie quit her permanent role and moved to Bali. Despite the uncertainty of the progressing pandemic, she found the space she needed to grieve her mother, whom she had lost not long before. And to Sophie’s delight, the digital nomad lifestyle has fulfilled many of her expectations. She soon noticed, however, a distinct bias against her choice of location. Some potential clients wouldn’t even entertain a conversation, because she was based in Bali. “I couldn’t make sense of it — it felt so stupid,” she explains. “I’m working with organisations like Greenpeace and the UNDP to instigate positive global change, as well as being a somatic trauma counsellor, so when people assume I’m not doing ‘serious work’ out here, it grinds my gears.” Now she has greater control over the projects she pursues, Sophie tells employers she lives in Indonesia, and is transparent about exactly where once she’s secured a contract. It’s the same for many of her remote working friends in Bali, who don’t disclose their location to remote employers for fear of losing work. Getting snubbed from projects, haemorrhaging your savings on basic living costs and constantly edging on burnout are usually the hardships associated with full-time home-based working in a metropolitan centre like London, New York, or Amsterdam. Despite the dominant utopian narrative presented in the media — think bossing it at the beach, bottomless cocktails, and a perennial tan — the reality of balancing global travel with remote work has always been hard. And it’s only getting harder: surging costs, political turbulence, and fickle visa rules are pushing digital nomads in new directions. Forking out for freedom New research from the Dutch neobank Bunq has revealed the hidden financial, emotional and mental toll, with its survey of 5,000 workers across Europe who identify as digital nomads and/or living internationally. Indeed, just one in five say that working internationally has positively impacted their career, with Britons in particular (25%) saying their career has actually suffered as a result of being a digital nomad. It’s certainly not the picture that wistful salaried employees conjure when daydreaming at their desks. For experts in the field, however, the tough reality is widely known. “Many of those experimenting with the lifestyle can’t sustain it,” says David Cook, an anthropologist and researcher at University College London who specialises in remote work. “Maintaining self-discipline, staying productive, and finding the space to focus gets worse over time, not better, alongside all the other external circumstances.” Managing the finance side is an area of particular concern. Bunq found that 17% of study participants feel less financially secure, while 14% are spending more than expected. Although this cohort isn’t weighed down by a mortgage or a huge rental deposit, they do have to factor in local taxes, medical bills, nomad visa costs, insurance claims, legal assistance, and banking fees. Sophie boarding a flight from Bali to visit family in Australia. Credit: Sophie Rucker The top unforeseen expenses, according to Bunq, include medical expenses (16%) and local taxes (15%). Less common, but equally unsettling, is that 5% of nomads across Europe have had to pay for emergency evacuation costs.   All that is before budgeting for the rise in everyday living costs, which have impacted home-based and remote workers alike. Everyone is feeling the pinch, with the majority of Europeans (67%) noticing the rise in food and beverage prices in the past 12 months, as per data from the Dutch firm Innova Market Insights. Day-to-day budgeting trumps a laundry list of other anxieties too. In the first quarter of 2025, McKinsey’s ConsumerWise research found that Europeans ranked rising prices and inflation as their number one concern over issues such as job security, international conflicts, climate change, and political tension, to name a few. Geoarbitrage — decoupling life and work from a specific location to make your income go further — has long been a practice employed by digital nomads. Coined by Tim Ferriss in his 2009 book The 4-Hour Workweek, the tactic is now often being reconsidered due to increased outgoings. “Accommodation has always been the biggest challenge, but in the last few years, after COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, it’s significantly more expensive, sometimes €200 extra a month for the same place and conditions haven’t changed,” says Anna Maria Kochanska, a strategist who advises governments on digital nomad policy, and has been nomadic since 2017. Anna Maria tends to avoid Airbnb, negotiating directly with apartment owners for midterm rentals, but even so, her rental outgoings are much higher in 2025. “I’m based in Barcelona at the moment, and of course, one solution is to go to new and emerging destinations, with fewer tourists and nomads, but my travel costs are going up too, so I’m moving around less frequently.” Popular digital nomad hubs like Barcelona, Lisbon, and Mexico City are losing their affordable edge, as available housing dries up, prices rise, and neighbourhoods are transformed to meet the needs of itinerant knowledge workers. Local residents are tiring of the impact remote workers are having, and have been protesting against the influx. The souring of once-beloved hubs is leading nomads to look elsewhere and decamp to more off-the-beaten-track destinations. According to 2025 data from Nomad List, which tracks cities, locations and remote workers through the trips booked on its platform, cities like Sarajevo, Portimao, and Varna are emerging as some of the most popular among nomad, with 46% of them staying in one city for less than seven days, and 33% staying between seven and 30 days. Fatigued by visa strategising While some digital nomads are travelling less and avoiding established hotspots to mitigate rising expenses, others are turning their backs on location independence entirely. Kach Umandap has been nomadic since 2014, originally starting as a virtual assistant, then moving into blogging and e-commerce. “For a Filipino like me, there are a ton of limitations on the places I can visit visa-free, but I was determined to visit every single country in the world,” says Kach. “I had to be really strategic about planning and already figure out where I would go afterwards, which is perhaps not the carefree image you have of digital nomad life.”  During certain weeks, Kach would spend more time arranging visas and doing travel admin than her actual job. She often had to do expensive visa runs to neighbouring countries to reset the clock. For example, when based in Vietnam, she needed to travel to Laos every 30 days, pay for transport, a hotel, and a booking agent each time. Having achieved the goal of working from all 193 UN member states and spending thousands of dollars each year on visa applications, Kach has returned to the Philippines to slowly establish her base there. Kach in Turkmenista, one of the 193 UN states she’s worked in. Credit: Kach Umandap Although new digital nomad visas are being rolled out constantly — the latest include Taiwan and the Philippines — many are launched hurriedly, so governments can have a horse in the race in the global talent tussle. Each one has wildly different eligibility criteria and often high minimum income requirements. Iceland, for example, requires a monthly salary of $7,763 (€6,868). Few digital nomads actually even engage with these visa programs. Grappling with a messy landscape and muddy definitions of “a digital nomad,” those eligible are being deterred. For nomads who do try, an application can take months to process, and putting one in only to find out you aren’t eligible due to poor signposting is hugely stressful. “We have the best lifestyle in the world, yet the worst ecosystem,” says Gonçalo Hall, CEO of NomadX, a global platform for digital nomads and president of the Digital Nomad Association Portugal. “Nomads have the numbers, energy, and economic force, but the cohesion is missing.” What’s more, nomads with ”weaker” passports, such as those from Syria, Pakistan, and Nigeria, have a hard time travelling compared to those from the EU and North America. With ongoing conflicts, political instability, and changing immigration laws, crossing the next border for a period of remote work is getting more intimidating by the day.  People drop off from full-time digital nomad lifestyles for many reasons though, from loneliness and moving too often to dealing with bureaucracy and the precarity of their careers. “It’s not for everyone, and although many people experiment with the lifestyle, they discover the real struggle a few months to a year in,” says Cook, of UCL. “It gets harder over time, so successful, long-term nomads need to be disciplined, resilient and self-motivated — in many ways, the perfect neoliberal person.” Cook is in his eighth year of collecting data in Chiang Mai, Thailand with the same group of people and estimates that 90% of the nomads in his research give up the lifestyle in the first year or two. “They tend to start hyper mobile, but end up craving place and being embedded in communities, which is not easy to sustain while living on the move,” explains Cook. “This is compounded when their income situation is precarious.” A strong pull, no matter the cost With 60 million digital nomads predicted to have joined the ranks by 2030, the lifestyle — despite, or even because of its challenges — remains alluring. For the knowledge workers who are forcibly displaced due to war, climate disaster, or fears of persecution, digital nomadism offers the chance to earn, even when on the move. For today’s remote workers, change is the only constant, and roaming patterns will continue to shift, as people adapt and find ways to thrive amid global change. They might choose to housesit through platforms like Nomador and Trusted Housesitters instead of renting, become an e-resident in a country like Estonia to maximise profit and minimise cost, or travel less and embed themselves deeper in a community. After all, the same autonomy and flexibility that draws people to this lifestyle also enables them to overcome the hurdles that come their way. Back in Bali, the housing and rental market is booming — and the clamour about overtourism is getting louder. To slow its development and ease local worries, the Balinese officials have floated the idea of a tourist tax, set to cost around $100 (€88) per day. In the current climate, Sophie is paying £750 (€881) a month for her cabin in Bali — just £70 (€82) shy of the room she rented in London — so she cannot save and is feeling the pressure to maintain her earnings. “The only thing that means I can make it work is the culture and lifestyle — for example, I work when my clients are sleeping, because of the different time zones,” she explains. “It eases my anxiety and enables me to solve problems more creatively.”  As many of her friends return home due to rocketing costs, Sophie is committed to staying put. “I’m in a privileged position to be working on some big projects, and am paying taxes in the UK and contributing to the local economy here,” she says. “I have to keep checking in on myself, but I’ve come to a very conscious decision: loving Bali and this life as much as I do, why should it be any cheaper than where I started?”  Story by Megan Carnegie Megan Carnegie is a London-based independent journalist who specialises in writing features about the world of technology, work, and busines (show all) Megan Carnegie is a London-based independent journalist who specialises in writing features about the world of technology, work, and business for publications like WIRED, Business Insider, Digital Frontier and BBC. Her work is underpinned by a desire to investigate what's not working in the working world, and how more equitable conditions can be secured for workers — whatever their industry. Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week. Also tagged with

May 23, 20255 min readThe Creepy Calculus of Measuring Death RiskMeet micromorts and microlives, statistical units that help mathematicians to calculate riskBy Manon Bischoff edited by Daisy Yuhas M-SUR/Alamy Stock PhotoPeople are generally bad at assessing probabilities. That’s why we have irrational fears and why we overestimate our odds of winning the lottery.Whenever I have to travel by plane, for example, my palms sweat, my heart races and my thoughts take a gloomy turn. I should be much more worried when I get on my bike in Darmstadt, Germany, where I live. Statistically, I’m in much greater danger on the road than in the air. Yet my bike commute doesn’t cause me any stress at all.Recently, a friend told me about a concept within decision theory that is supposed to help people get a better sense of hazards and risks. In 1980 electrical engineer Ronald Arthur Howard coined the micromort unit to quantify life-threatening danger.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.One micromort corresponds to a one-in-a-million chance of dying during a certain activity. Do you want to run a marathon? The risk is seven micromorts. Are you going under general anesthesia? That’s 10 micromorts. To arrive at these figures, you first need detailed statistics. How many people engaged in these activities and died in the process? And the results depend heavily on the group of people being studied (their age, gender, and so on), as well as the geographic location.Better Living through StatisticsSurprisingly, the history of statistics doesn’t go back very far. In the 17th century, British demographer John Graunt pioneered mortality statistics by analyzing records of deaths and baptisms. But it would take another 200 years for society to recognize the social benefits of these approaches.Today the utility of this mathematical subfield is undisputed. Insurance companies and banks use statistics to carry out risk assessments. Statistical surveys make it possible to investigate psychological and sociological phenomena. Physical research would be unthinkable without statistics.Thanks to Howard and the micromort, the risks in our everyday lives can also be estimated with the help of statistics. By examining the proportion of people who die while undertaking a particular activity, he was able to create a general mortality risk for those activities.But more recently, mathematician David Spiegelhalter noticed something missing in Howard’s analysis: the micromort unit merely indicates how likely it is that a very specific action will kill us. This may make sense for a one-off activity such as climbing a mountain. But for long-term habits, such as regularly eating fast food, the measure is of only limited use.For example, smoking a cigarette causes just 0.21 micromort and would therefore be significantly less risky than getting out of bed in the morning at the age of 45 (which results in six micromorts). Smoking, however, has long-lasting negative consequences for the body that getting up in the morning does not. The long-term risk is therefore not recorded.So Spiegelhalter introduced the “microlife” measure to take into account the long-term effects of different activities. This quantifies how much life you lose on average by carrying out an activity. Each microlife that is lost reduces your life expectancy by half an hour. Two hours of watching TV each day might cost one microlife, for instance.One of the most significant differences between micromorts and microlives is that one of the two types of units compounds over time, and the other does not. If I survive my morning bike ride to the Darmstadt train station, my micromort count for that ride drops back to zero. The next day I start the journey again with the same risk.It’s different with microlife data: if I smoke a cigarette and then a second one an hour later, the time I’ve lost adds up. And of course, the mere ticking of the clock also shortens my available years of life. Every day 48 microlives are lost.But unlike micromorts, I can regain microlives. For example, a 20-minute walk provides me with around two microlives—that is, an extra hour of life expectancy. And eating a healthy diet with fruits and vegetables could gain you four microlives daily.Reality CheckAll these facts and figures are entertaining to read about and can make for interesting conversation starters—“Hey, did you know that this beer shortens your life by about 15 minutes?”—at least with the right crowd. But how do you calculate the microlives you lose as a result of an action?First, you have to compare the life expectancy of different people. For example: How does the life expectancy of smokers and nonsmokers differ? By taking this difference and dividing it by the average number of cigarettes smoked, we can calculate the average amount of time that each cigarette robs us of.This result is clearly inexact. The difference in life expectancy will also depend on factors such as a person’s gender, place of residence and age. These data can still be captured, but when it comes to general lifestyle factors, things get complicated. For example, studies show that many smokers generally have an unhealthier lifestyle and exercise less.Such correlations cannot always be calculated and accounted for. When it comes to smoking, however, there have been long-term studies that followed many people, some of whom stopped smoking at some point in their life, over several decades.These data make it easier to isolate the effect that smoking has on a person’s life expectancy. Such research suggests that a single cigarette is likely to rob a person of slightly less than the originally calculated 15 minutes of life if they have the other lifestyle habits of a nonsmoker. So should we be consulting statistics at the start of every day to maximize our lifespan? Perhaps we should be studying these analyses to engage in activities with as few micromorts as possible and try to gain, rather than lose, microlives?Not exactly. Micromorts and microlives can help you better assess risks. But you shouldn’t attach too much importance to them. After all, our world is complex. You may gain back two microlives during a walk, but you could also get in an unlucky accident along the way and be hit by a car. Ultimately, micromorts and microlives are just too simple a tool to evaluate the full range of consequences associated with an action. Exercise can improve your state of mind, which has a positive effect not only on your quality of life but also on your lifespan.That said, it can still be a source of comfort to turn to statistics—particularly when we want to understand if our fear is rational or not. For my part, I will try to remind myself of how few micromorts are associated with flying. Maybe that will help.This article originally appeared in Spektrum der Wissenschaft and was reproduced with permission.

Why big tech B2B research doesn’t work for your startup.Startups are nothing like big companies. Their approach to UX research is, and should be, very different from what at big companies do.Startups live in the zero-to-one phase. Peter Thiel coined the term in his airport blockbuster book called —you guessed it— Zero-to-One. It defines the first phase in the life of a startup: from idea to live.While the terminology varies, most UX research can be classified into two groups:Generative researchEvaluative research“Generative research (sometimes called foundational, exploratory, or (as in this Field Guide) discovery research) helps researchers gain a deep and highly detailed understanding of the target audience, the market, and even internal project goals. […] Evaluative research is used to evaluate people’s responses to a product or solution.” — User InterviewsGenerative research is great at the start, to dive deep into user problems. Evaluative research is useful at getting feedback on existing prototypes or live products.Big companies separate them and mostly focus on evaluative research. While that works for them, it’s not useful during the zero-to-one phase. I’ll tell you why.Different size, different concernsYou see, big companies get big, not because they dupe investors, but because they find a market and a way to make the stuff it wants, at a profit. They have product-market fit, and now that they’re big, their goal is to improve their existing products.“Markets that do not exist cannot be analyzed: Suppliers and customers must discover them together.” ― Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovator’s DilemmaB2B startups, on the other hand, live in the zero-to-one zone. They have no market nor customer base. They haven’t found product-market fit. Once they do, their main concern becomes growth. Until then, their UX research should focus on deeply understanding user problems.What works for “Big Co.” won’t work for your startupThere’s a fallacy in the startup world of thinking that “oh, if it works for {insert big co. name} it’ll work for me!” — it might, but most likely it won’t. And it won’t work for a number of reasons.One reason is that Big Co. already has a user base that’s familiar with their product. Incremental changes can be compared against a control group and improvements or degradations can be measured. Startups don’t usually have that baseline and, if they do, it’s hard to determine whether a change in some number is statistically significant or random.Another reason is that Big Co. can deploy a team of researchers to carry out many customer conversations in parallel. A startup, however, usually has a single designer who has to book, conduct, summarize and share findings alone. Moreover, any time spent doing that is time away from other areas of design work.Thirdly, and like I mentioned before, Big Co. is not worried about disruptive innovation. They care about dominating their space by ever increasing their market share. They do this by gradually tackling adjacent problems to their core product, not by moving into different markets.What’s a startup to do?Startups are small and scrappy. That’s a double-edge sword. While it’s true they don’t have the resources of larger companies, their tiny size makes them nimble and allows them to pivot really fast in the light of new knowledge.Rather than building a convoluted infrastructure with many moving parts, I’m a big proponent of being practical. You probably already have all the tools you need to implement an effective strategic UX research process.A practical approach to strategic UX researchRather than splitting generative and evaluative research, or focusing primarily on the evaluative part, it’s helpful to organically combine both types and to do it continuously.By holding frequent check-ins with your customers, you build relationships that encourage them to share their challenges beyond mere product feedback. Identifying these challenges is key to strengthen your product’s value proposition.Sharing your findings with the rest of the team can spark conversations on framing user challenges as opportunities. Even if you’re a solo designer, you shouldn’t work alone.Simple goes a long wayInstead of investing in specialized tools that cost money and take time to learn, use Notion or Google Docs.Once you figure out what works and what doesn’t, you’ll be in a better position to choose a specific tool to improve your workflow.The approach I’ve been following for the past few years is simple:Make a list and reach out to existing customers (Notion, email)Have casual conversations, not interviews (generative + evaluative research)Have recurring check-insMaintain a simple database with insights (Notion)Share the knowledge with your team (Slack and team meetings)Use the tools you already have.Keep things simple and iterateA lot of guides focus on what so and so big company does to leverage research across a 2,000+ people product department. But like I mentioned, those processes don’t apply to the large majority of B2B startups.Rather than getting paralyzed thinking you need some perfect process, start simple, with the tools you already have and tweak things as you go.SourcesInformation, inspiration and co-creation — Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders, Ph.D, 2005Continuous discovery habits — Teresa TorresThe Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail — Clayton M. ChristensenScaling your B2B growth engine — Lenny’s newsletterWhich UX research methods — NN Group.Types of user research methods — User TestingThe zero-to-one research was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

May 20, 2025Could Mitochondria Be Rewriting the Rules of Biology?New discoveries about mitochondria could reshape how we understand the body’s response to stress, aging, and illness. Scientific AmericanSUBSCRIBE TO Science QuicklyRachel Feltman: Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the cell, right? Well, it turns out they might be way more complicated than that, and that could have implications for everything from diet and exercise to treating mental health conditions.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman.Our guest today is Martin Picard, an associate professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University. He’s here to tell us all about our mitochondria, what they do for us and how they can even talk to each other. If you like to watch your pods instead of just listening, you can check out a video version of my conversation with Martin over on our YouTube page. Plus, you’ll get to see some of the aligning mitochondria we’re about to talk about in action.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Martin, would you tell us a little bit about who you are and where you work?Martin Picard: Sure, I work at Columbia University; I’m a professor there, and I lead a team of mitochondrial psychobiologists, so we try to understand the, the mind-mitochondria connection, how energy and those little living creatures that populate our cells, how they actually feed our lives and allow us to, to be and to think and to feel and to experience life.Feltman: Before we get into the details, most people know mitochondria as the “powerhouse of the cell”—which, fun fact, Scientific American actually coined in the 1950s—but what are mitochondria, to start us off with a really basic question?Picard: [Laughs]Yes, 1957 is the “powerhouse of the cell.” That was momentous.That shaped generations of scientists, and now the powerhouse analogy is expired, so it’s time for a new perspective.Really, mitochondria are, are small living organelles, like little organs of the cell, and what they do is they transform the food we eat and the oxygen that we breathe. Those two things converge inside the mitochondria, and that gets transformed into a different kind of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, right? It’s a fundamental law of thermodynamics. So mitochondria, they don’t make energy; they transform the energy that’s stored in food from the plants and from the energy of the sun and then the oxygen combining this, and then they transform this into a little electrical charge. They dematerialize food—energy stored in food—into this very malleable, flexible form of energy that’s membrane potential, so they become charged like little batteries and then they power everything in our cells, from turning on genes and making proteins and cellular movement; cellular division; cell death, aging, development—everything requires energy. Nothing in biology is free.Feltman: Well, I definitely wanna get into what you said about the powerhouse analogy not working anymore ’cause that seems pretty huge, but before we get into that: you recently wrote a piece for Scientific American, and you referred to yourself as, I think, a “mitochondriac.” I would love to hear what you mean by that and how you got so interested in these organelles.Picard: Yeah, there’s a famous saying in science: “Every model is wrong, but some are useful.” And the model that has pervaded the world of biology and the health sciences is the gene-based model (the central dogma of biology, as it’s technically called): genes are the blueprint for life, and then they drive and determine things. And we know now [it] to be misleading, and it forces us to think that a lot of what we experience, a lot of, you know, health or diseases, is actually determined by our genes. The reality is a very small percentage [is].Whether we get sick or not and when we get sick is not driven by our genes, but it’s driven by, you know, emergent processes that interact from our movement and our interaction with other people, with the world around us, with what we eat, how much we sleep, how we feel, the things we do. So the gene-based model was very powerful and useful initially, and then, I think, its, its utility is dwindling down.So the powerhouse analogy powered, you know, a few [laughs] decades of science, and then what started to happen, as scientists discovered all of these other things that mitochondria do, we kept getting surprised. Surprise is an experience, and when you feel surprised about something, like, it’s because your internal model of what that thing is, it was wrong, right?Feltman: Right.Picard: And when there’s a disconnect between your internal model and the, the reality, then that feels like surprise. And I grew up over the last 15 years as a academic scientist, and, like, every month there’s a paper that’s published: “Mitochondria do this. Mitochondria make hormones.” Surprise! A, a powerhouse should have one function: it should make, or transform, energy, right? This is what powerhouses do. Mitochondria, it turns out, they have a life cycle. They make hormones. They do transform energy, but they also produce all sorts of signals. They turn on genes; they turn off genes. They can kill the cell if they deem that’s the right thing to do.So there are all of these functions, and, and I think, as a community, we keep being surprised as we discover new things that mitochondria do. And then once you realize the complexity and the amazing beauty of mitochondria and their true nature, then I think you have to become a mitochondriac [laughs]. You have to, I think, be impressed by the beauty of—this is just a—such a beautiful manifestation of life. I fell in love with mitochondria, I think, is what happened [laughs].Feltman: Yeah, well, you touched on, you know, a few of the surprising things that mitochondria are capable of, but could you walk us through some of your research? What surprises have you encountered about these organelles?Picard: One of the first things that I saw that actually changed my life was seeing the first physical evidence that mitochondria share information ...Feltman: Mm.Picard: With one another. The textbook picture and the powerhouse analogy suggests that mitochondria are these, like, little beans and that they, they kind of float around and they just make ATP, adenosine triphosphate, which is the cellular energy currency, and once in a while they reproduce: there’s more mitochondria that come from—mitochondria, they can grow and then divide. So that’s what the powerhouse predicts.And what we found was that when—if you have a mitochondrion here and another mitochondrion here, inside the mitochondria, they’re these membranes ...Feltman: Mm.Picard: They’re, like, little lines. They look, in healthy mitochondria, look like radiators, right? It’s, like, parallel arrays. And it’s in these lines that the oxygen that we breathe is consumed and that the little charge—the, the food that we eat is converted into this electrical charge. These are called cristae.And in a normal, healthy mitochondria the cristae are nicely parallel, and there’s, like, a regularity there that’s just, I think, intuitively appealing, and it, it looks healthy. And then if you look at mitochondria in a diseased organ or in a diseased cell, often the cristae are all disorganized. That’s a feature of “something’s wrong,” right?And I’ve seen thousands of pictures and I’ve taken, you know, several thousands of pictures on the electron microscope, where you can see those cristae very well, and I’d never seen in the textbooks or in articles or in presentations, anywhere, that the cristae could actually, in one mitochondrion, could be influenced by the cristae in another mitochondrion.And what I saw that day and that I explained in the [laughs], in the article was that there was this one mitochondrion there—it had beautifully organized cristae here, and here the cristae were all disorganized. And it turns out that the part of this mitochondrion that had beautifully organized cristae is all where that mitochondria was touching other mitochondria.Feltman: Mm.Picard: So there was something about the mito-mito contact, right? Like, a unit touching another unit, an individual interacting with another individual, and they were influencing each other ...Feltman: Yeah.Picard: And the cristae of one mitochondrion were bending out of shape. That’s not thermodynamically favorable [laughs], to bend the lipid membrane, so there has to be something that is, you know, bringing energy into the system to bend the membrane, and then they were meeting to be parallel with the cristae of another mitochondrion. So there was these arrays that crossed boundaries between individual mitochondria ...Feltman: Wow.Picard: And this was not [laughs] what I, I learned or this was not what I was taught or that I’d read, so this was very surprising.The first time we saw this, we had this beautiful video in three dimension, and I was with my colleague Meagan McManus, and then she realized that the cristae were actually aligning, and we did some statistics, and it became very clear: mitochondria care about mitochondria around them ...Feltman: Yeah.Picard: And this was the first physical evidence that there was this kind of information exchange.When you look at this it just looks like iron filings around a magnet.Feltman: Mm.Picard: Sprinkle iron filings on the piece of paper and there’s a magnet underneath, you see the fields of force, right? And fields are things that we can’t see, but you can only see or understand or even measure the strength of a field by the effect it has on something. So that’s why we sprinkle iron filings in a magnetic field to be able to see the field.Feltman: Right.Picard: It felt like what we were seeing there was the fingerprint of maybe an underlying electromagnetic field, which there’s been a lot of discussion about and hypothesis and some measurements in the 1960s, but that’s not something that most biologists think is possible. This was showing me: “Maybe the powerhouse thing is, is, is, is not the way to go.”Feltman: Did you face any pushback or just general surprise from your colleagues?Picard: About the cristae alignment?Feltman: Yeah.Picard: I did a lot of work. I took a lot of pictures and did a lot of analysis to make sure this was real ...Feltman: Mm.Picard: So I think when I presented the evidence, it was, it was, you know, it was clear [laughs].Feltman: Right.Picard: This was real.Feltman: Yeah.Picard: Whether this is electromagnetic—and I think that’s where people have kind of a gut reaction: “That can’t be real. That can’t be true.”Feltman: Mm.Picard: The cristae alignment is real, no questioning this, but whether this—there’s a magnetic field underlying this, we don’t have evidence for that ...Feltman: Sure.Picard: It’s speculation, but I think it, it hits some people, especially the strongly academically trained people that have been a little indoctrinated—I think that tends to happen in science ...Feltman: Sure.Picard: I think if we wrote a grant, you know, to, to [National Institutes of Health] to study the magnetic properties of mitochondria, that’d be much harder to get funded. But there was no resistance in accepting the visual evidence of mitochondria exchanging information ...Feltman: Yeah.Picard: What it means, then, I think, is more work to be done to—towards that.Feltman: If, if we were seeing an electromagnetic field, what would the implications of that be?Picard: I think the implications is that the model that most of biomedical sciences is based on, which is “we’re a molecular soup and we’re molecular machines,” that might not be entirely how things work. And if we think that everything in biology is driven by a lock-and-key mechanism, right—there’s a molecule that binds a receptor and then this triggers a conformational change, and then there’s phosphorylation event and then signaling cascade—we’ve made a beautiful model of this, a molecular model of how life works.And there’s a beautiful book that came out, I think last year or end of 2023, How Life Works, by Philip Ball, and he basically brings us through a really good argument that life does not work by genetic determinism, which is how most people think and most biologists think that life works, and instead he kind of brings us towards a much more complete and integrative model of how life works. And in that alternate model it’s about patterns of information and information is carried and is transferred not just with molecules but with fields. And we use fields and we use light and we use, you know, all sorts of other means of communication with technology; a lot of information can be carried through your Bluetooth waves ...Feltman: Mm.Picard: Right? Fields. Or through light—we use fiber optic to transfer a lot of information very quickly. And it seems like biology has evolved to, to harness these other ways of, of nonmolecular mechanisms of cell-cell communication or organism-level communication.There’s an emerging field of quantum biology that is very interested in this, but this clashes a little bit with the molecular-deterministic model that science has been holding on to [laughs]—I think against evidence, in, in some cases—for a while. Nobody can propose a rational, plausible molecular mechanism to explain what would organize cristae like this across mitochondria. The only plausible mechanism seems to be that there’s a—there’s some field, some organizing electromagnetic field that would bend the cristae and organize them, you know, across organelles, if that’s true.Feltman: Right.Picard: It was a bit of an awakening for me, and it turned me into a mitochondriac because it made me realize that this is the—this whole thing, this whole biology, is about information exchange and mitochondria don’t seem to exist as little units like powerhouses; they exist as a collective.Feltman: Yeah.Picard: The same way that you—this body. It’s a bunch of cells; either you think it’s a molecular machine or you think it’s an energetic process, right? There’s energy flowing through, and are you more the molecules of your body or are you more the, the energy flowing through your body?Feltman: Mm.Picard: And if you go down this, this line of questioning, I think, very quickly you realize that the flow of energy running through the physical structure of your body is more fundamental. You are more fundamentally an energetic process ...Feltman: Hmm.Picard: Than the physical molecular structure that you also are. If you lose part of your anatomy, part of your structure, right—you can lose a limb and other, you know, parts of your, of your physical structure—you still are you ...Feltman: Right.Picard: Right? If your energy flows differently or if you change the amount of energy that flows through you, you change radically. Three hours past your bedtime you’re not the best version of your, the best version of yourself. When you’re hangry, you haven’t eaten, and you, like, also, you’re not the best version of yourself, this is an energetic change. Right?Feltman: Yeah.Picard: Many people now who have experienced severe mental illness, like schizophrenia and bipolar disease, and, and who are now treating their symptoms and finding full recovery, in some cases, from changing their diets.Feltman: Mm.Picard: And the type of energy that flows through their mitochondria, I think, opens an energetic paradigm for understanding health, understanding disease and everything from development to how we age to this whole arc of life that parallels what we see in nature.Feltman: Yeah, so if we, you know, look at this social relationship between mitochondria, what are, in your mind, the most, like, direct, obvious implications for our health and ...Picard: Mm-hmm.Feltman: And well-being?Picard: Yeah, so we can think of the physical body as a social collective. So every cell in your body—every cell in your finger, in your brain, in your liver, in your heart—lives in some kind of a social contract with every other cell. No one cell knows who you are, or cares [laughs], but every cell together, right, makes up who you are, right? And then together they allow you to feel and to have the experience of who you are. That kind of understanding makes it clear that the key to health is really the coherence between every cell.Feltman: Mm.Picard: If you have a few cells here in your body that start to do their own thing and they kind of break the social contract, that’s what we call cancer. So you have cells that stop receiving information from the rest of the body, and then they kind of go rogue, they go on their own. Their purpose in life, instead of sustaining the organism, keeping the whole system in coherence, now these cells have as their mind, like, maybe quite literally, is, “Let’s divide, and let’s make more of ourselves,” which is exactly what life used to be before mitochondria came in ...Feltman: Mm.Picard: Into the picture 1.5 billion years ago, or before endosymbiosis, the origin of, of multicellular life. So cancer, in a way, is cells that have broken the social contract, right, exited this social collective, and then to go fulfill their own little, mini purpose, which is not about sustaining the organism but sustaining themselves. So that principle, I think, has lots of evidence to, to support it.And then the same thing, we think, happens at the level of mitochondria, right? So the molecular-machine perspective is that mitochondria are little powerhouses and they’re kind of slaves to the cell: if the cell says, “I need more energy,” then the mitochondria provide and they kind of obey rules. The mito-centric perspective [laughs] is that mitochondria really drive the show. And because they’re in charge of how energy flows, they have a veto on whether the cell gets energy and lives and divides and differentiates and does all sorts of beautiful things or whether the cell dies.And most people will know apoptosis, programmed cell death, which is a normal thing that happens. The main path to apoptosis in, in our bodies is mitochondria calling the shot, so mitochondria have a veto, and they can decide, “Now, cell, it’s time to die.” And mitochondria make those decisions not based on, like, their own little powerhouse [laughs] perception of the world; they make these decisions as social collectives. And you have the hundreds, thousands of mitochondria in some cells that all talk to each other and they integrate dozens of signals—hormones and metabolites and energy levels and temperature—and they integrate all this information; they basically act like a mini brain ...Feltman: Hmm.Picard: Inside every cell. And then once they have a, a—an appropriate picture of what the state of the organism is and what their place in this whole thing is, then they actually, I think, make decisions about, “Okay, it’s time to divide,” right? And then they send signals to, to the nucleus, and then there’re genes in the nucleus that are necessary for cell division that gets turned on, and then the cell enters cell cycle, and we and others have shown in, in, in the lab, you can prevent a cell from staying alive [laughs] but also from differentiating—a stem cell turning into a neuron, for example, this is a major life transition for a cell. And people have asked what drives those kind of life transitions, cellular life transitions, and it’s clear mitochondria are one of the main drivers of this ...Feltman: Hmm.Picard: And if mitochondria don’t provide the right signals, the stem cell is never gonna differentiate into a specific cell type. If mitochondria exists as a social collective, then what it means for health [laughs] is that what we might wanna do is to promote sociality, right, to promote crosstalk between different parts of our bodies.Feltman: Hmm.Picard: And I suspect this is why exercise is so good for us.Feltman: Yeah, that was—that’s a great segue to my next question, which is: How do you think we can foster that sociality?Picard: Yeah. When times are hard, right, then people tend to come together to solve challenges. Exercise is a, a big challenge for the organism, right?Feltman: Mm.Picard: You’re pushing the body, you’re, like, contracting muscles, and you’re moving or, you know, whatever kind of exercise you’re doing—this costs a lot of energy, and it’s a big, demanding challenge for the whole body. So as a result you have the whole body that needs to come together to survive this moment [laughs]. And if you’re crazy enough to run a marathon, to push your body for three, four hours, this is, like, a massive challenge.Feltman: Sure.Picard: The body can only sustain that challenge by coming together and working really coherently as a unit, and that involves having every cell in the body, every mitochondria in the body talking to each other. And it’s by this coherence and this kind of communication that you create efficiency, and the efficiency is such a central concept and principle in all of biology. It’s very clear there, there have been strong evolutionary forces that have pushed biology to be evolved towards greater and greater efficiency.The energy that animals and organisms have access to is finite, right? There’s always a limited amount of food out there in the world. If there’s food and there are other people with you, your social group, do you need to share this? So if biology had evolved to just eat as much food as possible, we would’ve gone extinct or we wouldn’t have evolved the way we have. So it’s clear that at the cellular level, at the whole organism level, in insects to very large mammals, there’s been a drive towards efficiency.You can achieve efficiency in a few ways. One of them is division of labor. Some cells become really good at doing one thing, and that’s what they do. Like muscles, they contract [laughs]; they don’t, you know, release hormones—or they release some hormones but not like the liver, right?Feltman: Sure.Picard: And the liver feeds the rest of the body, and the liver is really good at this. But the liver’s not good at integrating sensory inputs like the brain. The brain is really good at integrating sensory inputs and kind of managing the rest of the body, but the brain is useless at digesting food or, you know, feeding the rest of the body. So every organ specializes, and this is the reason we’re so amazing [laughs]. This is the reason complex multicellular animals that, you know, that, that have bodies with organs can do so many amazing things: because this whole system has harnessed this principle of division of labor. So you have a heart that pushes blood, and you have lungs that take in oxygen, and that’s the main point: [it’s] the cooperation and the teamwork, the sociality between cells and mitochondria and, and organs that really make the whole system thrive.So exercise does that.Feltman: Yeah.Picard: It forces every cell in the body to work together. Otherwise you’re just not gonna survive. And then there are other things that happen with exercise. The body is a predictive instrument, right ...Feltman: Mm.Picard: That tries to make predictions about what’s gonna happen in the future, and then you adapt to this. So when you exercise and you start to breathe harder the reason you breathe harder, the reason, you know, you need to bring in more oxygen in your body, is because your mitochondria are consuming the oxygen. And when that happens every cell has the ability to feel their energetic state, and when they feel like they’re running out of energy, like if you’re exercising hard and your muscles are burning, your body says, “Next time this happens I’ll be ready.” [Laughs] And it gets ready—it mobilizes this program, this preparatory program, which, which we call exercise adaptation, right—by making more mitochondria. So the body can actually make more mitochondria after exercise.So while you’re exercising, the mitochondria, they’re transforming food and oxygen very quickly, making ATP, and then cells—organs are talking to one another; then you’re forcing this great social collective. Then when you go and you rest and you go to sleep, you lose consciousness [laughs], and then the natural healing forces of the body can work. Now the body says, “Next time this happens I’ll be ready,” and then it makes more mitochondria. So we know, for example, in your muscles you can double the amount of mitochondria you have ...Feltman: Wow.Picard: With exercise training. So if you go from being completely sedentary to being an elite runner, you will about double the amount of mitochondria in, in your muscle. And ...Feltman: That’s really cool.Picard: Yeah. And this seems to happen in other parts of the body as well, including the brain.Feltman: I know that your lab does some work on mitochondria and mental health as well. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?Picard: The ability to mitochondria to flow energy supports basic cellular functions, but it also powers the brain [laughs] and powers the mind, and our best understanding now of what is the mind—and consciousness researchers have been debating this for a long time—I think our, our best, most parsimonious definition of the mind is that the mind is an energy pattern. And if the flow of energy changes, then your experience also changes. And there’s emerging evidence in a field called metabolic psychiatry that mental health disorders are actually metabolic disorders ...Feltman: Hmm.Picard: Of the brain.There’s several clinical trials—some are published, many more underway—and the evidence is very encouraging that feeding mitochondria a certain type of fuel, called ketone bodies, brings coherence into the organism. And energetically we think this reduces the resistance to energy flow so energy can flow more freely through the neurons and through the structures of the brain and then through the mitochondria.And that—that’s what people report when they, they go into this medical ketogenic therapy: they feel like they have more energy, sometimes quite early, like, after a few days, sometimes after a few weeks. And then the symptoms of, of mental illness in many people get better. The website Metabolic Mind has resources for clinicians, for patients and, and guidance as to how to—for people to work with their care team, not do this on their own but do this with their medical team.Feltman: And I know that mitochondria have kind of a weird, fascinating evolutionary backstory.Picard: They used to be bacteria, and once upon a time, about two billion years ago, the only thing that existed on the planet that was alive were unicellular, right, single-cell, bacteria, a single-cell organism. And then some bacteria—there were different kinds—and then some bacteria were able to use oxygen for energy transformation; that was—those are called aerobic, for oxygen-consuming. And then there are also anaerobic, non-oxygen-consuming, bacteria that are fermenting cells.And then at some point, about 1.5 billion years ago, what happened is there was a small aerobic bacterium, an alphaproteobacterium, that either infiltrated a larger anaerobic cell or it was the larger cell that ate the small aerobic bacterium, the large one kept it in, and then the small aerobic bacterium ended up dividing and then became mitochondria. So mitochondria used to be this little bacterium that now is very much part of what we are, and what seems to have happened when this critical kind of merger happened is that a new branch of life became possible.Feltman: Yeah.Picard: And animals became possible. And somehow this acquisition, from the perspective of the larger cell, enabled cell-cell communication, a form of cell-cell communication that was not possible before. And this seems to have been the trigger for multicellular life and the development of, initially, little worms and then fishes and then animals and then eventually Homo sapiens.Feltman: Yeah, and that was really controversial when it was first proposed, right?Picard: Yeah. Lynn Margulis, who is, like, a fantastic scientist, she proposed this, and I think her paper was rejected [15] times ...Feltman: Wow.Picard: Probably by Nature and then by a bunch of [laughs] ...Feltman: [Laughs] Sure.Picard: A bunch of other journals. Fourteen rejections and then in the end she published it, and now this is a cornerstone of biology. So kudos for persistence ...Feltman: Yeah.Picard: For Lynn Margulis.Feltman: And mitochondria have just been shaking things up for, for decades [laughs], I guess.Picard: Mm-hmm, yeah, there’ve been several Nobel Prizes for understanding how mitochondria work—specifically for the powerhouse function of mitochondria [laughs].The field of [molecular] mitochondrial medicine was born in the ’80s. Doug Wallace, who was my mentor as a postdoc, discovered that we get our mitochondria from our mothers. The motherly nourishing energy [laughs] is passed down through mitochondria. There’s something beautiful about that.Feltman: Yeah. Thank you so much for coming in. This was super interesting, and I’m really excited to see your work in the next few years.Picard: Thank you. My pleasure.Feltman: That’s all for today’s episode. Head over to our YouTube page if you want to check out a video version of today’s conversation. We’ll be back on Friday with one of our deep-dive Fascinations. This one asks whether we can use artificial intelligence to talk to dolphins. Yes, really.While you’re here, don’t forget to fill out our listener survey. You can find it at sciencequickly.com/survey. If you submit your answers in the next few days, you’ll be entered to win some free Scientific American swag. More importantly, you’ll really be doing me a solid.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. See you next time!

As the most famous residence in the country, the White House’s interiors are given the utmost attention, and they tend to change with every new administration. So, we’re taking a look back at how the property’s design has evolved over the years. From the famed Sister Parish designs of the Kennedy era to Michael S. Smith’s vision for the Obamas, the house has seen impressive transformations and, more recently, some unexpected style choices. The White House’s OriginsBefore we explore the White House’s most prominent interiors, let’s take a look back at the famed home’s history. The White House was designed by Irish architect James Hoban in the Neoclassical style of architecture and built over the course of eight years (from 1792 to 1800). The edifice itself is made of Aquia Creek sandstone that was painted white because of the risk posed by the permeability of the stone, which could crack in colder months. Before the White House was built, the President’s House in Philadelphia served as home to two presidents: George Washington and John Adams. The construction of the White House was completed just a few months before Adams’s presidency ended, so he was able to move into the People’s House before his term concluded.Until 1901, what we know as the White House was actually called the Executive Mansion, which then-President Theodore Roosevelt didn’t find ideal—given that many U.S. states had a governor’s residence that was also called the Executive Mansion. Roosevelt subsequently coined the term "White House" that we know and still use to this day—the new name could also be seen atop copies of his stationery.Related StoryThe Early Years When President John Adams and his wife, First Lady Abigail Adams, moved into the White House, the residence was lacking in decor, given that it was only recently completed. The East Room of the White House—which is now used for events such as press conferences, ceremonies, and banquets—was then used by Abigail Adams as a laundry room.Thomas Jefferson was the first president of the United States to spend his entire time in office living in the White House. He set the precedent for the home’s opulent but still livable interiors by having furnishings and wallpaper imported from France.The Late 1800s and Early 1900sIn 1882, President Chester Arthur enlisted Louis Comfort Tiffany to reimagine the Red Room, the Blue Room, the East Room, and the Entrance Hall, the latter of which soon welcomed the addition of a stained glass screen, in true Tiffany style. Library of CongressLouis Comfort Tiffany’s design of the White House Red Room, circa 1884-1885.whitehousehistory.orgPeter Waddell’s The Grand Illumination, an 1891 oil painting that showcases Louis Comfort Tiffany’s stained glass screen in the White House Entrance Hall.Much to our dismay, President Theodore Roosevelt had Tiffany’s creations removed 20 years later, because the designs were seen as dated at this point. Roosevelt already had a construction crew at work in the White House to make more room for his sizable family (hence the addition of the East Wing and the West Wing). While there are no colorized photos of these rooms under Tiffany’s direction, there are black and white photographs and a colorful oil painting of what the stained glass screen likely looked like—so we can only imagine how magical it appeared in real life. It’s believed that after the screen was removed, it was sold at auction and later installed at Maryland’s Belvedere Hotel, which was destroyed in a fire in 1923. Shortly after the removal of Tiffany’s designs, Theodore Roosevelt hired celebrated architectural firm McKim, Mead & White to restore the White House to its Neoclassical glory. Related StoryThe Early-to-Mid-1900sIt wasn’t until 1909—over a century after the White House’s completion—that the Oval Office was created. Then-President William Howard Taft added this room and had it painted in an army green shade, which has since been changed, as every president likes to make the space their own.Given the numerous state dinners at the White House and accompanying serveware required for them, First Lady Edith Wilson (wife to Woodrow Wilson) oversaw the completion of the White House China Room in 1917. Since then, the room has displayed state service china, silverware, and glassware chosen and used by each administration (a selection traditionally made by the First Lady). The White House Historical AssociationThe White House China Room in 1975.The majority of the presidential china depicts some variation of the Great Seal, which features a bald eagle and a shield that resembles the United States flag, but most administrations have come up with their own unique designs. Many of these are produced by Pennsylvania-based porcelain manufacturer Lenox. One of our personal favorites? James Polk’s charming floral dessert plate, featuring a mint green hue, is a refreshing change from the usually neutral color palette of other presidential china. (Heads up: You can buy reproductions of this plate and others on eBay!)Many may not know that the White House was once home to an indoor pool. (Yes, really!) In 1933, an indoor pool was installed in the People’s House at the request of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who used swimming as a form of therapy to help with his polio. On the walls overlooking the pool was a mural by artist Bernard Lammotte, who painted the Christiansted Harbor from the island of Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. Thirty-six years later, Richard Nixon nixed the underground pool and turned the space above it into a press briefing room to host televised broadcasts.Abbie Rowe/National Park Service/Harry S. Truman Library & MuseumThe White House Reconstruction under President Harry S. Truman, circa 1950.Following the Great Depression and World War II, the White House was in desperate need of repair, so much so that it was deemed unsafe for occupancy in 1948, after architectural and engineering investigations. Harry S. Truman, his family, and the White House staff had to live elsewhere during a three-year-long reconstruction project in which the People’s House was completely gutted, enlarged, and reconstructed. The Trumans spent this time living at Blair House—also known as the President’s Guest House—which is located across the street from the White House. (Two members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party attempted and failed to assassinate Truman while he was living in this house.) The Kennedy YearsFirst Lady Jacqueline Kennedy was very passionate about historic preservation, and it was her efforts that led to the formation of the White House Historical Association, a nonprofit organization that still exists today, aiming to preserve the White House’s history and make the home more publicly accessible. She was also the reason the White House was declared a museum, thereby ensuring its preservation for decades to come.View full post on YoutubeDuring Jackie Kennedy’s first year as First Lady, she oversaw a $2 million renovation of the White House. Following the completion of the project, Jacqueline Kennedy gave a televised tour of the White House, which aired on NBC and CBS to over 80 million viewers on Valentine’s Day of 1962. This was the second televised tour of the White House (Harry S. Truman was the first to give a tour in 1952), and the first time it was led by a First Lady. The broadcast went on to win both an Emmy Award and a Peabody Award.Mrs. Kennedy's renovation focused on reincorporating historic furniture and decor. “It just seemed to me such a shame when we came here to find hardly anything of the past in the house, hardly anything before 1902,” she explained in the broadcast. She cited Colombia’s Presidential Palace as a site where “every piece of furniture in it has some link with the past. I thought the White House should be like that.” Kennedy was so passionate about allowing the public to access the People’s House that, following the suspension of tours after her husband's assassination in 1963, she requested that the tours resume just one week later.The John F. Kennedy LibraryFirst Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s dressing room at the White House, designed by Stéphane Boudin.The Kennedy-era White House restoration would not have been complete without the interior decorators who helped make it possible: Sister Parish, and later, Stéphane Boudin. Parish designed the Yellow Oval Room and the Kennedy’s private quarters, but was later replaced by Boudin (reportedly following an occurrence in which Parish advised a young Caroline Kennedy to keep her feet off of the furniture; in Parish’s own writing, she revealed that someone told Mrs. Kennedy that Parish kicked Caroline—but this was never confirmed). Parish’s granddaughter, Susan Bartlett Crater, once told the New York Times that the rift was sparked mainly by “a problem over money.” Regardless, Parish’s influence on the interior design world remains indisputable to this day, and much of the popularity of her style can be traced to this high-profile project.Boudin was soon hired to decorate the Blue Room, the Treaty Room, the Red Room, and the Lincoln Sitting Room. He would later add his own touch to the private rooms of the White House as well, with more French-style decor than was previously in place.Getty ImagesThe White House Rose Garden as Bunny Mellon designed it during the Kennedy administration. Jackie Kennedy also famously oversaw the completion of the White House Rose Garden, at the behest of her husband. She tapped socialite, philanthropist, and horticulturalist Rachel Lambert "Bunny" Mellon to design the project. Related StoryThe Late 20th Century to Present DayThe White House interiors have been reinvented numerous times over the 220-year history of the building, and the decor tends to perfectly encapsulate both the time period and the First Family living there. Dorothy Draper protégé Carleton Varney served as Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter's "design consultant," styling state dinners and overseeing Christmas decor. Famed American decorator Mark Hampton also contributed Christmas decorations in 1977. The Ronald Reagan Library Ronald and Nancy Reagan enjoying a meal on silver TV trays in the White House.In the 1980s, the Reagans hired Ted Graber, a decorator from Beverly Hills, to bring their vision to life. In the process, many antique furnishings were replaced with 20th-century decor, straying from typical White House decorating traditions. At the beginning of the next decade, George H.W. Bush tapped Hampton to revive the Oval Office and Executive Residence during his tenure. By the time Bill Clinton moved in, the hand-painted 18th-century-style bird wallpaper that was installed by the Reagans in the master bedroom was still in place. The Clintons’ interior decorator, Kaki Hockersmith, removed and replaced the wallpaper, telling The Washington Post that the room “had lots of all kinds of birds flying and sweeping around. It was not a calming atmosphere.”As First Lady, Hillary Clinton helped raise the White House Endowment Trust’s funds to $35 million, so that more restoration work could be done to White House. During her time spent living at the People’s House, Mrs. Clinton had five rooms restored: the State Dining Room (which Mark Hampton oversaw), the East Room, Cross Hall, the Red Room, and the Blue Room. The Ronald Reagan Library The Reagans’ bird wallpaper (pictured) was later replaced by the Clintons.George W. Bush hired Kenneth Blasingame, a fellow Texan, to decorate the White House interiors during his administration. And this wasn’t their first time working together—Blasingame also decorated the Bush family’s ranch house in Crawford, Texas. Then-First Lady Laura Bush told Architectural Digest about her plans for the Oval Office’s redesign, saying, “We knew he wanted it to be a sunny office that showed an optimist worked there.” One of the pieces that she and Blasingame collaborated on was a rug that featured the iconic presidential seal, along with a cheery addition: sun rays above the emblem, which echoed Mrs. Bush’s hopes for a “sunny office.” The rug also includes a depiction of a garland made of laurel leaves, a tie-in to the First Lady’s first name, Laura.Architectural DigestThe Queens’ Bedroom as it appeared during the George W. Bush years, where various queens throughout history have stayed. The drapery, bed hanging, and armchair are by Scalamandré.When President Barack Obama took office, he replaced the aforementioned rug with one that paid tribute to four prior presidents and a civil rights icon. The following quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. outline the perimeter of the historical rug:"Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” —Abraham Lincoln"The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us.” —Theodore Roosevelt"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” —Franklin Delano Roosevelt"No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.” —John F. Kennedy"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” —Martin Luther King Jr.Michael Mundy/Rizzoli Michael S. Smith’s design for the Obama-era Yellow Oval Room.Barack and Michelle Obama worked with decorator Michael S. Smith to make extensive updates to the residence, creating spaces that merged formality and comfort—and incorporating plenty of modern and contemporary art by American talents. With the help of decorator Tham Kannalikham, President Donald Trump replaced the Obama-era beige striped wallpaper in the Oval Office with a light grey damask option during his first term. In the years Trump first took office, at least $3.4 million was spent to revamp the White House to better suit his aesthetic—including a highly controversial revamp of the Rose Garden.During Joe Biden’s term as president, First Lady Jill Biden notably chose interior designer Mark D. Sikes—known for his expertise in fresh, all-American style—to reimagine her East Wing office. Sikes was the first design expert the Bidens selected to transform a White House space, according to The Washington Post. When the couple was living in the vice president’s residence, they enlisted designer Victoria Hagan.View full post on InstagramSikes later updated Blair House, the President’s Guest House, with more than 100 rooms. He spent a year and a half revamping the place with his team to make it feel comfortable and homey for visitors while preserving the historic interiors, which hadn’t been updated since Mario Buatta and Mark Hampton refreshed the house in the 1980s. “We wanted to continue the story that was already told by Mark and Mario,” Sikes told AD in October 2024. “They’re both idols of mine, so we didn’t want to completely reimagine what they did, but continue the story and update it and make it feel like the best representation of American traditional design there is.”Sikes reupholstered existing furniture, designed custom pieces, and even commissioned a brighter take on the Clarence House damask wallpaper Buatta and Hampton installed in the hallways and staircases. The designer also applied the refreshed Blair House logo to everything from linens to china.Related StoryAnna Moneymaker//Getty ImagesIn Trump’s second term as president so far, he’s made evident changes to the Oval Office—giving the room a more ornate, gold-heavy look. Among the new accessories are a row of historic gold objects on the mantel, gold medallions on the walls and fireplace, gilded Rococo mirrors on the walls, gold eagles on side tables, and even gold cherubs above the doors.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

Country Living editors select each product featured. If you buy from a link, we may earn a commission. Why Trust Us?Last week I was reading one of my favorite design newsletters, Cathy and Garrett of The Grit And Polish, a pair of old-home renovators in Washington state. Cathy was sharing about shopping for window treatments, specifically the designer-beloved Chik blinds, for a rental renovation project. When the estimated price for the blinds didn’t come in at budget, instead of giving up, Cathy employed what she’s coined, “The 90% Rule.” I’ll let her explain:“Garrett and I have found that getting from 90% to 100%, design-wise, can be very expensive,” says Cathy. “And more often than not, we’re just as satisfied with the lower cost option.”Cathy ended up sourcing bamboo rollup blinds that, while not an exact match to the Chik blinds, are close enough to get the desired look without significantly breaking the budget. Cathy admits that, like all of us, she occasionally splurges, but “most of the time 90% feels like the right compromise between good design and reasonable budget.” Armed with a new catch phrase, I spent the weekend thinking of all the times I’m thankful to have settled on a “pretty good is good enough” way of thinking.In the Living RoomEllen GodfreyThe living room of my 1914 Craftsman is bright and cheerful with coffered ceilings and an original coal-burning fireplace with an inky green tile surround. I knew I wanted to do something to highlight the green tile, so when my friend and designer, Ellen Godfrey introduced me to Trustworth’s “Hydrangea” wallpaper it was love at first sight. It’s a whimsical, floral pattern that has similar green tones to my tile paired with muted yellows and dusty pinks. But without the budget to afford a full-room wallpaper install, I opted to apply the 90% rule and only wallpaper the fireplace bump out instead. I saved thousands of dollars on both the wallpaper and the installation fees, and, thanks to the room being mostly windows and door, I got 90% of the way to the look I was after. Seven years later and I’m still so glad I didn’t wait until I could afford to wallpaper the entire room. For More on Wallpaper:In the KitchenBecky-Luigart StaynerBecky Luigart-Stayner for Country LivingBecky Luigart-Stayner for Country LivingThe vision for my British-inspired kitchen renovation was always yellow, so nailing the perfect shade of warm sunshine was mission critical. Once my husband and I completed extensive swatch testing, lost a few nights of sleep, and polled a dozen of our most design-savvy friends it felt like a worthy splurge to go with our winner, Sudbury Yellow by Farrow & Ball instead of color-matching the yellow hue with a more affordable paint brand. However, another element on the vision board was a breakfast nook for our family of four to have a space to enjoy more casual meals and snacks together. With a tiny kitchen footprint that left no room for a built-in banquet and a budget that couldn’t handle more custom cabinetry, we once again decided to get 90% of the way there, opting for an antique pedestal table and a freestanding scalloped banquette-style bench upholstered in performance fabric. Again, we saved thousands of dollars in construction costs, and, in the end, got 90% of the way there in both form and function. For More on Kitchens & Breakfast Nooks:In the Kid’s RoomMaribeth Jones for Country LivingWhen our daughter Ruby was born we had to get serious about light control in the guest room that was getting twirled up into her nursery. The room has SEVEN windows. Seven! I think it was a sleeping porch in a past life, but I digress. I really wanted motorized linen shades from The Shade Store, like I’d seen in the beautiful Connecticut farmhouse of Debbie Propst. But with the aforementioned seven windows, they just weren’t in the budget. Once again, we employed the 90% rule and went with a more affordable line of motorized shades in a creamy linen that allowed us to get both the light filtering and ease we needed, while not sacrificing too much on the look we were after. If you squint they aaaalmost look like the luxe version from my original inspiration. For More On Window Treatments:So, whether you’re looking to do a full renovation or some minor decor swaps, let the 90% rule be your North Star. Cheers to good enough! Maribeth B JonesDesign DirectorMaribeth B Jones is the Design Director of Country Living where she creates seasonal content full of warmth and playfulness. When she’s not wrangling chickens for a cover shoot you can find her collecting vintage oil portraits or flipping pancakes in her sunny, yellow kitchen with her two chatty daughters.

Credit: Mashable Photo Composite / Apple TV+, MGM+, Mubi, Peacock Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. Learn more about how we select deals. The best streaming deals on National Streaming Day: Best overall streaming deal Peacock Premium (Annual Subscription) $24.99 per year for one year (save $55 with code SPRINGSAVINGS) Best streaming deal for movie lovers Mubi $3.99 per month for 4 months (save $44) Best Roku Channel deal MGM+ (Roku Channel) $0.99 per month for 2 months (save $12) Best free trial Apple TV+ free for one month (save $9.99) Happy National Streaming Day, folks. Coined by Roku back in 2014 as a way of self-promoting its streaming devices and subscriptions, National Streaming Day is now an unofficial holiday falling on May 20 every year. If you've been searching for streaming deals, now's a good opportunity to sign up for new services for a steal. Although Roku created the holiday, we've seen other streamers throw their hats in the ring in years past — like this $1 per month Hulu deal from 2022 — and this year is no different. But Roku still has the biggest selection of streaming deals to choose from. This time around, the streaming device company is offering up to 90 percent off subscriptions to MGM+, Starz, Shudder, AMC+, and more. The only catch is you have to sign up through the Roku Channel, which is completely free and can be accessed through your web browser, a Roku streaming device, or an Amazon Fire TV device. Without further ado, here are the best streaming deals on National Streaming Day 2025. Be sure to sign up ASAP, as most of the deals expire sooner than you think. For example, all the Roku Channel offers end May 21 at 2:59 a.m. ET. You May Also Like Best National Streaming Day deal Opens in a new window Credit: Peacock Peacock Premium (Annual Subscription) $24.99 $79.99 Save $55 with code SPRINGSAVINGS Technically this Peacock deal isn't exclusively for National Streaming Day, but we're including it because it's such an impressive deal. Through May 30, new and returning Peacock subscribers can get one year of Peacock Premium for only $24.99 with code SPRINGSAVINGS. That's 68% off the usual cost of $79.99 per year and breaks down to a little over $2 per month. We're big fans of Peacock; it's easy to use, always has great deals, and features a highly impressive catalog of movies and shows. It's where you'll find movies like Wicked, Nosferatu, and Black Bag, popular shows like The Office, New Girl, and Yellowstone, and Peacock Originals like Poker Face and Long Bright River.Best National Streaming Day deal for movie lovers Opens in a new window Credit: MUBI Mubi $3.99/month for 4 months (save $44) Mubi is not your average streaming service. It's specifically made for cinephiles, with a library that's brimming with quality international cinema. It's home to Mubi originals like recent Oscar nominee The Substance, plus plenty of mainstream, classic, independent, and award-winning movies. It's also where you'll find The People's Joker and Bird, two more of our favorite movies of 2024. For a limited time, new and returning subscribers can get Mubi for only $3.99 per month for 4 months. That's a massive $44 in savings, as it usually costs $14.99 per month. Related Stories Mashable Deals Want more hand-picked deals from our shopping experts? Sign up for the Mashable Deals newsletter. By clicking Sign Me Up, you confirm you are 16+ and agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Thanks for signing up! Best National Streaming Day deal on Roku Opens in a new window Credit: MGM+ MGM+ (Roku Channel) $0.99/month for 2 months (save $12) Roku's deals are aplenty this Streaming Day, but our favorite is this one on MGM+. Through May 22 at 2:59 a.m. ET, new and returning subscribers can sign up for MGM+ for only 99 cents per month for two months on the Roku Channel. Usually $6.99 per month, that saves you $12 total. MGM+ is home to a ton of movies we love, like Challengers, Better Man, Blink Twice, and Nickel Boys. The streamer also features its own original series like Godfather of Harlem, From, and Hotel Cocaine. Just be sure to cancel your subscription before your promotional period ends if you want to avoid paying full price.Best National Streaming Day free trial deal Opens in a new window Credit: Apple TV+ Apple TV+ free one-month trial Why we like itFree streaming? Yes, please. Through June 26, you can sign up for one month of Apple TV+ for free through Roku. Just install and open the app on your Roku device and follow the prompts to subscribe and you'll enjoy an entire month of free streaming, as opposed to the usual free seven-day trial. A month gives you more time to stream some Apple TV+ original series like Severance, Ted Lasso, and Palm Royale, and movies like The Gorge, Killers of the Flower Moon, and Echo Valley.More National Streaming Day dealsA&E Crime Central (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $6)AcornTV (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $14)allblk (on Roku Channel) — $0.99/month for 2 months (save $12)AMC+ (on Roku Channel) — $2.99/month for 2 months (save $14)BBC Select (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $8)BritBox (on Roku Channel) — $2.99/month for 2 months (save $12)Crunchyroll (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $12)Hallmark+ (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $12)History Vault (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $8)Hopster Learning (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $6)Lifetime Movie Club (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $6)MHz Choice (on Roku Channel) — $0.99/month for 2 months (save $14)Shudder (on Roku Channel) — $0.99/month for 2 months (save $16)Starz (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $18)ViX Premium (on Roku Channel) — $1.99/month for 2 months (save $14) Topics Streaming Christina Buff Christina Buff is a Nashville-based freelance writer for who covers shopping with a splash of entertainment. If you’re ever wondering what streaming service you need to watch something (and the cheapest way to sign up for it), she’s your girl.Christina received a B.S. in Business Communication (concentration in writing) from Stevenson University and began her professional journey writing and editing press releases. Since then, she’s written content for a marketing agency, blogged for celebrities, and covered local news, politics, women’s lifestyle, fashion, beauty, and just about everything in between for various publications.When she’s not writing, she’s probably enjoying live music, studying human design, or embroidering and upcycling clothes. You can follow her on Instagram at @touchinfinity.