In early-stage start-ups, the pitch deck is often the first thing investors see. Sometimes, it’s the only thing. And yet, it rarely gets the same attention as the website or the socials. Most decks are pulled together last minute, with slides that feel rushed, messy, or just off. That’s where designers can really make a difference. The deck might seem like just another task, but it’s a chance to work on something strategic early on and help shape how the company is understood. It offers a rare opportunity to collaborate closely with copywriters, strategists and the founders to turn their vision into a clear and convincing story. Founders bring the vision, but more and more, design and brand teams are being asked to shape how that vision is told, and sold. So here are five handy things we’ve learned at SIDE ST for the next time you’re asked to design a deck. Think in context Designers stepping into pitch work should begin by understanding the full picture – who the deck is for, what outcomes it’s meant to drive and how it fits into the broader brand and business context. Their role isn’t just to make things look good, but to prioritise clarity over surface-level aesthetics. It’s about getting into the founders’ mindset, shaping visuals and copy around the message, and connecting with the intended audience. Every decision, from slide hierarchy to image selection, should reinforce the business goals behind the deck. Support the narrative Visuals are more subjective than words, and that’s exactly what gives them power. The right image can suggest an idea, reinforce a value, or subtly shift perception without a single word. Whether it’s hinting at accessibility, signalling innovation, or grounding the product in context, design plays a strategic role in how a company is understood. It gives designers the opportunity to take centre stage in the storytelling, shaping how the company is understood through visual choices. But that influence works both ways. Used thoughtlessly, visuals can distort the story, suggesting the wrong market, implying a different stage of maturity, or confusing people about the product itself. When used with care, they become a powerful design tool to sharpen the narrative and spark interest from the very first slide. Keep it real Stock photos can be tempting. They’re high-quality and easy to drop in, especially when the real images a start-up has can be grainy, unfinished, or simply not there yet. But in early-stage pitch decks, they often work against your client. Instead of supporting the story, they flatten it, and rarely reflect the actual team, product, or context. This is your chance as a designer to lean into what’s real, even if it’s a bit rough. Designers can elevate even scrappy assets with thoughtful framing and treatment, turning rough imagery into a strength. In early-stage storytelling, “real” often resonates more than “perfect.” Pay attention to the format Even if you’re brought in just to design the deck, don’t treat it as a standalone piece. It’s often the first brand touchpoint investors will see—but it won’t be the last. They’ll go on to check the website, scroll through social posts, and form an impression based on how it all fits together. Early-stage startups might not have full brand guidelines in place yet, but that doesn’t mean there’s no need for consistency. In fact, it gives designers a unique opportunity to lay the foundation. A strong, thoughtful deck can help shape the early visual language and give the team something to build on as the brand grows. Before you hit export For designers, the deck isn’t just another deliverable. It’s an early tool that shapes and impacts investor perception, internal alignment and founder confidence. It’s a strategic design moment to influence the trajectory of a company before it’s fully formed. Designers who understand the pressure, pace and uncertainty founders face at this stage are better equipped to deliver work that resonates. This is about more than simply polishing slides, it’s about helping early-stage teams tell a sharper, more human story when it matters most. Maor Ofek is founder of SIDE ST, a brand consultancy that works mainly with start-ups. 

Key Takeaways on Ant PoopDo ants poop? Yes. Any creature that eats will poop and ants are no exception. Because ants live in close quarters, they need to protect the colony from their feces so bacteria and fungus doesn't infect their health. This is why they use toilet chambers. Whether they isolate it in a toilet chamber or kick it to the curb, ants don’t keep their waste around. But some ants find a use for that stuff. One such species is the leafcutter ant that takes little clippings of leaves and uses these leaves to grow a very particular fungus that they then eat.Like urban humans, ants live in close quarters. Ant colonies can be home to thousands, even tens of thousands of individuals, depending on the species. And like any creature that eats, ants poop. When you combine close quarters and loads of feces, you have a recipe for disease, says Jessica Ware, curator and division chair of Invertebrate Zoology at the American Museum of Natural History. “Ant poop can harbor bacteria, and because it contains partly undigested food, it can grow bacteria and fungus that could threaten the health of the colony,” Ware says. But ant colonies aren’t seething beds of disease. That’s because ants are scrupulous about hygiene.Ants Do Poop and Ant Toilets Are RealAnt colony underground with ant chambers. (Image Credit: Lidok_L/Shutterstock)To keep themselves and their nests clean, ants have evolved some interesting housekeeping strategies. Some types of ants actually have toilets — or at least something we might call toilets. Their nests are very complicated, with lots of different tunnels and chambers, explains Ware, and one of those chambers is a toilet chamber. Ants don’t visit the toilet when they feel the call of nature. Instead, worker ants who are on latrine duty collect the poop and carry it to the toilet chamber, which is located far away from other parts of the nest. What Does Ant Poop Look Like? This isn’t as messy a chore as it sounds. Like most insects, ants are water-limited, says Ware, so they try to get as much liquid out of their food as possible. This results in small, hard, usually black or brownish pellets of poop. The poop is dry and hard enough so that for ant species that don’t have indoor toilet chambers, the workers can just kick the poop out of the nest.Ants Use Poop as FertilizerWhether they isolate it in a toilet chamber or kick it to the curb, ants don’t keep their waste around. Well, at least most types of ants don’t. Some ants find a use for that stuff. One such species is the leafcutter ant. “They basically take little clippings of leaves and use these leaves to grow a very particular fungus that they then eat,” says Ware. “They don't eat the leaves, they eat the fungus.” And yep, they use their poop to fertilize their crops. “They’re basically gardeners,” Ware says. If you’d like to see leafcutter ants at work in their gardens and you happen to be in the New York City area, drop by the American Museum of Natural History. They have a large colony of fungus-gardening ants on display.Other Insects That Use ToiletsAnts may have toilets, but termites have even wilder ways of dealing with their wastes. Termites and ants might seem similar at first sight, but they aren’t closely related. Ants are more closely related to bees, while termites are more closely related to cockroaches, explains Aram Mikaelyan, an entomologist at North Carolina State University who studies the co-evolution of insects and their gut microbiomes. So ants’ and termites’ styles of social living evolved independently, and their solutions to the waste problem are quite different.“Termites have found a way to not distance themselves from the feces,” says Mikaelyan. “Instead, they use the feces itself as building material.” They’re able to do this because they feed on wood, Mikaelyan explains. When wood passes through the termites’ digestive systems into the poop, it enables a type of bacteria called Actinobacteria. These bacteria are the source of many antibiotics that humans use. (Leafcutter ants also use Actinobacteria to keep their fungus gardens free of parasites.) So that unusual building material acts as a disinfectant. Mikaelyan describes it as “a living disinfectant wall, like a Clorox wall, almost.”Insect HygieneIt may seem surprising that ants and termites are so tidy and concerned with hygiene, but it’s really not uncommon. “Insects in general are cleaner than we think,” says Ware. “We often think of insects as being really gross, but most insects don’t want to lie in their own filth.”Article SourcesOur writers at Discovermagazine.com use peer-reviewed studies and high-quality sources for our articles, and our editors review for scientific accuracy and editorial standards. Review the sources used below for this article:The American Society of Microbiology. The Leaf-cutter Ant’s 50 Million Years of FarmingAvery Hurt is a freelance science journalist. In addition to writing for Discover, she writes regularly for a variety of outlets, both print and online, including National Geographic, Science News Explores, Medscape, and WebMD. She’s the author of Bullet With Your Name on It: What You Will Probably Die From and What You Can Do About It, Clerisy Press 2007, as well as several books for young readers. Avery got her start in journalism while attending university, writing for the school newspaper and editing the student non-fiction magazine. Though she writes about all areas of science, she is particularly interested in neuroscience, the science of consciousness, and AI–interests she developed while earning a degree in philosophy.

June 5, 20254 min readThe Trump-Musk Fight Could Have Huge Consequences for U.S. Space ProgramsA vitriolic war of words between President Donald Trump and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk could have profound repercussions for the nation’s civil and military space programsBy Lee Billings edited by Dean VisserElon Musk (left) and President Donald Trump (right) seemed to be on good terms during a press briefing in the Oval Office at the White House on May 30, 2025, but the event proved to be the calm before a social media storm. Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesFor several hours yesterday, an explosively escalating social media confrontation between arguably the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, and the world’s most powerful, President Donald Trump, shook U.S. spaceflight to its core.The pair had been bosom-buddy allies ever since Musk’s fateful endorsement of Trump last July—an event that helped propel Trump to an electoral victory and his second presidential term. But on May 28 Musk announced his departure from his official role overseeing the U.S. DOGE Service. And on May 31 the White House announced that it was withdrawing Trump’s nomination of Musk’s close associate Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Musk abruptly went on the attack against the Trump administration, criticizing the budget-busting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now navigating through Congress, as “a disgusting abomination.”Things got worse from there as the blowup descended deeper into threats and insults. On June 5 Trump suggested on his own social-media platform, Truth Social, that he could terminate U.S. government contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX and Tesla. Less than an hour later, the conflict suddenly grew more personal, with Musk taking to X, the social media platform he owns, to accuse Trump—without evidence—of being incriminated by as-yet-unreleased government documents related to the illegal activities of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.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.Musk upped the ante further in follow-up posts in which he endorsed a suggestion for impeaching Trump and, separately, declared in a now deleted post that because of the president’s threat, SpaceX “will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately.” (Some five hours after his decommissioning comment, tempers had apparently cooled enough for Musk to walk back the remark in another X post: “Ok, we won’t decommission Dragon.”)Dragon is a crucial workhorse of U.S. human spaceflight. It’s the main way NASA’s astronauts get to and from the International Space Station (ISS) and also a key component of a contract between NASA and SpaceX to safely deorbit the ISS in 2031. If Dragon were to be no longer be available, NASA would, in the near term, have to rely on either Russian Soyuz vehicles or on Boeing’s glitch-plagued Starliner spacecraft for its crew transport—and the space agency’s plans for deorbiting the ISS would essentially go back to the drawing board. More broadly, NASA uses SpaceX rockets to launch many of its science missions, and the company is contracted to ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency’s Artemis III mission.Trump’s and Musk’s retaliatory tit for tat also raises the disconcerting possibility of disrupting other SpaceX-centric parts of U.S. space plans, many of which are seen as critical for national security. Thanks to its wildly successful reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets, the company presently provides the vast majority of space launches for the Department of Defense. And SpaceX’s constellation of more than 7,000 Starlink communications satellites has become vitally important to war fighters in the ongoing conflict between Russia and U.S.-allied Ukraine. SpaceX is also contracted to build a massive constellation of spy satellites for the DOD and is considered a leading candidate for launching space-based interceptors envisioned as part of Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile-defense plan.Among the avalanche of reactions to the incendiary spectacle unfolding in real time, one of the most extreme was from Trump’s influential former adviser Steve Bannon, who called on the president to seize and nationalize SpaceX. And in an interview with the New York Times, Bannon, without evidence, accused Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen, of being an “illegal alien” who “should be deported from the country immediately.”NASA, for its part, attempted to stay above the fray via a carefully worded late-afternoon statement from the space agency’s press secretary Bethany Stevens: “NASA will continue to execute upon the President’s vision for the future of space,” Stevens wrote. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the President’s objectives in space are met.”The response from the stock market was, in its own way, much less muted. SpaceX is not a publicly traded company. But Musk’s electric car company Tesla is. And it experienced a massive sell-off at the end of June 5’s trading day: Tesla’s share price fell down by 14 percent, losing the company a whopping $152 billion of its market value.Today a rumored détente phone conversation between the two men has apparently been called off, and Trump has reportedly said he now intends to sell the Tesla he purchased in March in what was then a gesture of support for Musk. But there are some signs the rift may yet heal: Musk has yet to be deported; SpaceX has not been shut down; Tesla’s stock price is surging back from its momentary heavy losses; and it seems NASA astronauts won’t be stranded on Earth or on the ISS for the time being.Even so, the entire sordid episode—and the possibility of further messy clashes between Trump and Musk unfolding in public—highlights a fundamental vulnerability at the heart of the nation’s deep reliance on SpaceX for access to space. Outsourcing huge swaths of civil and military space programs to a disruptively innovative private company effectively controlled by a single individual certainly has its rewards—but no shortage of risks, too.

Few roles evolve as quickly as that of the modern CIO. A great way to prepare for a future that is largely unknown is to build your adaptability skills through diverse work experiences, says Bhavik Rao, CIO for the Americas at Vertiv. Learn from your wins and your losses and carry on. Stay free of comfort zones and run towards the chaos. Leaders are born of challenges and not from comfort.Bhavik shares what he’s facing now, how he’s navigating it, and the hard-won lessons that helped shape his approach to IT leadership.Here’s what he had to say:What has your career path looked like so far? I actually started my career as a techno-functional consultant working with the public sector. That early experience gave me a solid grounding in both the technical and process side of enterprise systems. From there, I moved into consulting, which really opened up my world. I had the opportunity to work across multiple industries, leading everything from mobile app development and eCommerce deployments to omnichannel initiatives, data platforms, ERP rollouts, and ultimately large-scale digital transformation and IT strategy programs. It was fast paced, challenging, and incredibly rewarding.  That diversity shaped the way I think today. I learned how to adapt quickly, connect dots across domains, and communicate with everyone from developers to CXOs. Eventually, that path led me to Vertiv, where I now serve as the CIO for the Americas, in addition to leading a couple of global towers, such as data/AI and engineering systems, for example. I’ve been fortunate to lead initiatives that drive operational efficiency, scale GenAI adoption, and turn technology into a true business enabler.   Related:What are the highlights along your career path? There have been several defining moments, both wins and challenges, that have shaped how I lead today. One of the most pivotal chapters has been my time at Vertiv. I joined when the company was still owned by private equity. It was an intense, roll-up-your-sleeves kind of environment. Then, in 2020, we went public -- a huge milestone. But just as we were ramping up our digital transformation, COVID hit, and with it came massive supply chain disruptions. In the middle of all that chaos, I was asked to take over a large-scale transformation program that was struggling. bhBhavik RaoIt wasn’t easy. There were legacy challenges, resistance to change, and real execution pressure. But we rallied, restructured the program, and launched it. That experience taught me a lot about leading under pressure, aligning teams around outcomes, and staying focused even when everything feels like it’s shifting. Related:Another major learning moment was earlier in my career when I lost a large national account I’d spent over seven years building. That was a tough one, but it taught me resilience. I learned not to attach my identity to any one outcome and to keep moving forward with purpose. Then, there are the moments of creation, like launching VeGA, our internal GenAI platform at Vertiv. Seeing it go from idea to impact, with thousands of users and 100+ applications, has been incredibly energizing. It reminded me how powerful it is when innovation meets execution. I’ve also learned the power of being a “player-coach.” I don’t believe in leading from a distance. I get involved, understand the challenges on the ground, and then help teams move forward together.  What’s your vision for the future of sovereign AI? For me, sovereign AI isn’t just a regulatory checkbox; it’s about strategic autonomy. At our company, we are trying to be very intentional about how we scale AI responsibly across our global footprint. So, when I think about sovereign AI, I define it as the ability to control how, where, and why AI is built and deployed with full alignment to your business needs, risk posture, and data boundaries. Related:I’ve seen firsthand how AI becomes a competitive advantage only when you have governance, infrastructure flexibility, and contextual intelligence built in. Our work with VeGA, for example, has shown that employees adopt AI much faster when it’s embedded into secure, business-aligned workflows and not just bolted on from the outside. For CIOs, the shift to sovereign AI means: Designing AI infrastructure that can flex whether it’s hosted internally, cloud-based, or hybrid Building internal AI fluency so your teams aren't fully reliant on black-box solutions Creating a framework for trust and explainability, especially as AI touches regulated and legal processes It’s not about doing everything in-house, but it is about knowing what’s mission-critical to control. In my view, sovereign AI is less about isolation and more about intentional ownership. What do you do for fun or to relax? Golf is my go-to. It keeps me grounded and humble! It’s one of those games that’s as much about mindset as it is about mechanics. I try to work out regularly when I am not traveling for work.  I also enjoy traveling with my family and listening to podcasts.   What advice would you give to young people considering a leadership path in IT? Be curious, stay hands-on, don’t rush the title, and focus on impact. Learn the business, not just the tech. Some of the best technologists I’ve worked with are the ones who understand how a supply chain works or how a sale actually closes. Also, don’t be afraid to take on messy, undefined problems. Run toward the chaos. That’s where leadership is born. And finally, surround yourself with people smarter than you. Build teams that challenge you. That’s where real growth happens. 

Elon Musk is contemplating decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, responding to President Donald Trump's apparent intent to terminate government subsidies and contracts with the billionaire's companies. It looks like the feud between the former allies has quickly turned vicious.SpaceX's CEO initially announced that the company would retire its Dragon spacecraft in an X post on Thursday, with Musk sharing a screenshot of a post published on Trump's Truth Social account earlier in the day."The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," said Trump in the screenshotted post. "I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!" You May Also Like "In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk wrote on X.SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft are a family of vehicles designed to carry passengers and cargo. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has previously relied upon them to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Mere hours prior to Musk's announcement, SpaceX posted on X that it was preparing to launch a Dragon next Tuesday.For a few hours, it seemed reasonable to assume that this launch would now not go ahead. However, Musk then appeared to quickly walk back his decision. Responding to an X user advising him to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days," the billionaire subsequently stated that Dragon will not be decommissioned after all.It's unclear whether Musk's initial announcement was sincere, or whether his apparent about-face might be sarcastic. Musk has a history of making flippant comments online with no apparent regard to their consequences. What is clear is that Musk and Trump's relationship is well past the honeymoon phase, and now looks much more like an ugly divorce.If Trump does terminate government contracts with Musk's companies, it would deal a significant blow to the billionaire. According to a Washington Post investigation, NASA has invested over $15 billion in SpaceX alone. When put together with Musk's other companies such as EV automaker Tesla, his various businesses have received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. Mashable Trend Report: Coming Soon! Decode what’s viral, what’s next, and what it all means. Sign up for Mashable’s weekly Trend Report 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! Musk and Trump go through messy public breakup Credit: Roberto Schmidt / AFP via Getty Images Musk's relationship with Trump has significantly deteriorated in recent days. The billionaire announced that he was leaving his position as de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) last Wednesday, just one day after he criticised Trump's tax bill as undermining its work. The split was presented as amicable at the time, with Trump presenting Musk with a golden key and words of praise. However, their love affair has quickly turned sour.Musk continued to lambast Trump's bill after his departure from DOGE, arguing that it will increase government debt by trillions of dollars. Strongly disagreeing with the president's characterisation of the proposed legislation as a "Big Beautiful Bill," Musk labelled it a "disgusting abomination" and has been calling for lawmakers to crush it.For his part, Trump has claimed that Musk is simply throwing a tantrum because the bill supposedly cut an alleged "EV mandate." The president stated on Thursday that he had asked the billionaire to leave his administration, and that Musk had been "wearing thin.""I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump claimed. Despite Trump's assertions, he did not abolish any EV mandate as there has never been any U.S. law which makes switching to an electric car mandatory. However, Trump has taken several anti-EV measures since his inauguration, including abolishing incentives encouraging EV adoption, pausing $3 billion in funding for a U.S. charging network, and introducing a $250 annual fee for EV users in his recent tax bill. Related Stories Trump's claim about Musk is an interesting contrast to his statements in March, when he praised the billionaire for not complaining about the supposed end of the non-existent EV mandate. The president made the comments while he and Musk co-hosted a Tesla ad on the White House lawn in an effort to boost the company's cratering stock prices.Tesla's struggling share value has now fallen again amidst Musk's feud with Trump, plummeting more than 14 percent on Thursday to wipe out over $150 billion in value."I don’t mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago," Trump wrote on Thursday.Meanwhile, Musk went all-in attacking Trump on Thursday, claiming that the president is linked to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and sharing posts calling for him to be impeached. Musk has also hit out at Trump's tariffs on international trade, predicting that they will "cause a recession in the second half of the year.""Without me, Trump would have lost the election," Musk alleged on X. "Such ingratitude."

When people talk about UX, it’s usually about the things they can see and interact with, like wireframes and prototypes, smart interactions, and design tools like Figma, Miro, or Maze. Some of the outputs are even glamorized, like design systems, research reports, and pixel-perfect UI designs. But here’s the truth I’ve seen again and again in over two decades of working in UX: none of that moves the needle if there is no collaboration. Great UX doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens through conversations with engineers, product managers, customer-facing teams, and the customer support teams who manage support tickets. Amazing UX ideas come alive in messy Miro sessions, cross-functional workshops, and those online chats (e.g., Slack or Teams) where people align, adapt, and co-create. Some of the most impactful moments in my career weren’t when I was “designing” in the traditional sense. They have been gaining incredible insights when discussing problems with teammates who have varied experiences, brainstorming, and coming up with ideas that I never could have come up with on my own. As I always say, ten minds in a room will come up with ten times as many ideas as one mind. Often, many ideas are the most useful outcome. There have been times when a team has helped to reframe a problem in a workshop, taken vague and conflicting feedback, and clarified a path forward, or I’ve sat with a sales rep and heard the same user complaint show up in multiple conversations. This is when design becomes a team sport, and when your ability to capture the outcomes multiplies the UX impact. Why This Article Matters Now The reason collaboration feels so urgent now is that the way we work since COVID has changed, according to a study published by the US Department of Labor. Teams are more cross-functional, often remote, and increasingly complex. Silos are easier to fall into, due to distance or lack of face-to-face contact, and yet alignment has never been more important. We can’t afford to see collaboration as a “nice to have” anymore. It’s a core skill, especially in UX, where our work touches so many parts of an organisation. Let’s break down what collaboration in UX really means, and why it deserves way more attention than it gets. What Is Collaboration In UX, Really? Let’s start by clearing up a misconception. Collaboration is not the same as cooperation. Cooperation: “You do your thing, I’ll do mine, and we’ll check in later.” Collaboration: “Let’s figure this out together and co-own the outcome.” Collaboration, as defined in the book Communication Concepts, published by Deakin University, involves working with others to produce outputs and/or achieve shared goals. The outcome of collaboration is typically a tangible product or a measurable achievement, such as solving a problem or making a decision. Here’s an example from a recent project: Recently, I worked on a fraud alert platform for a fintech business. It was a six-month project, and we had zero access to users, as the product had not yet hit the market. Also, the users were highly specialised in the B2B finance space and were difficult to find. Additionally, the team members I needed to collaborate with were based in Malaysia and Melbourne, while I am located in Sydney. Instead of treating that as a dead end, we turned inward: collaborating with subject matter experts, professional services consultants, compliance specialists, and customer support team members who had deep knowledge of fraud patterns and customer pain points. Through bi-weekly workshops using a Miro board, iterative feedback loops, and sketching sessions, we worked on design solution options. I even asked them to present their own design version as part of the process. After months of iterating on the fraud investigation platform through these collaboration sessions, I ended up with two different design frameworks for the investigator’s dashboard. Instead of just presenting the “best one” and hoping for buy-in, I ran a voting exercise with PMs, engineers, SMEs, and customer support. Everyone had a voice. The winning design was created and validated with the input of the team, resulting in an outcome that solved many problems for the end user and was owned by the entire team. That’s collaboration! It is definitely one of the most satisfying projects of my career. On the other hand, I recently caught up with an old colleague who now serves as a product owner. Her story was a cautionary tale: the design team had gone ahead with a major redesign of an app without looping her in until late in the game. Not surprisingly, the new design missed several key product constraints and business goals. It had to be scrapped and redone, with her now at the table. That experience reinforced what we all know deep down: your best work rarely happens in isolation. As illustrated in my experience, true collaboration can span many roles. It’s not just between designers and PMs. It can also include QA testers who identify real-world issues, content strategists who ensure our language is clear and inclusive, sales representatives who interact with customers on a daily basis, marketers who understand the brand’s voice, and, of course, customer support agents who are often the first to hear when something goes wrong. The best outcomes arrive when we’re open to different perspectives and inputs. Why Collaboration Is So Overlooked? If collaboration is so powerful, why don’t we talk about it more? In my experience, one reason is the myth of the “lone UX hero”. Many of us entered the field inspired by stories of design geniuses revolutionising products on their own. Our portfolios often reflect that as well. We showcase our solo work, our processes, and our wins. Job descriptions often reinforce the idea of the solo UX designer, listing tool proficiency and deliverables more than soft skills and team dynamics. And then there’s the team culture within many organisations of “just get the work done”, which often leads to fewer meetings and tighter deadlines. As a result, a sense of collaboration is inefficient and wasted. I have also experienced working with some designers where perfectionism and territoriality creep in — “This is my design” — which kills the open, communal spirit that collaboration needs. When Collaboration Is The User Research In an ideal world, we’d always have direct access to users. But let’s be real. Sometimes that just doesn’t happen. Whether it’s due to budget constraints, time limitations, or layers of bureaucracy, talking to end users isn’t always possible. That’s where collaboration with team members becomes even more crucial. The next best thing to talking to users? Talking to the people who talk to users. Sales teams, customer success reps, tech support, and field engineers. They’re all user researchers in disguise! On another B2C project, the end users were having trouble completing the key task. My role was to redesign the onboarding experience for an online identity capture tool for end users. I was unable to schedule interviews with end users due to budget and time constraints, so I turned to the sales and tech support teams. I conducted multiple mini-workshops to identify the most common onboarding issues they had heard directly from our customers. This led to a huge “aha” moment: most users dropped off before the document capture process. They may have been struggling with a lack of instruction, not knowing the required time, or not understanding the steps involved in completing the onboarding process. That insight reframed my approach, and we ultimately redesigned the flow to prioritize orientation and clear instructions before proceeding to the setup steps. Below is an example of one of the screen designs, including some of the instructions we added. This kind of collaboration is user research. It’s not a substitute for talking to users directly, but it’s a powerful proxy when you have limited options. But What About Using AI? Glad you asked! Even AI tools, which are increasingly being used for idea generation, pattern recognition, or rapid prototyping, don’t replace collaboration; they just change the shape of it. AI can help you explore design patterns, draft user flows, or generate multiple variations of a layout in seconds. It’s fantastic for getting past creative blocks or pressure-testing your assumptions. But let’s be clear: these tools are accelerators, not oracles. As an innovation and strategy consultant Nathan Waterhouse points out, AI can point you in a direction, but it can’t tell you which direction is the right one in your specific context. That still requires human judgment, empathy, and an understanding of the messy realities of users and business goals. You still need people, especially those closest to your users, to validate, challenge, and evolve any AI-generated idea. For instance, you might use ChatGPT to brainstorm onboarding flows for a SaaS tool, but if you’re not involving customer support reps who regularly hear “I didn’t know where to start” or “I couldn’t even log in,” you’re just working with assumptions. The same applies to engineers who know what is technically feasible or PMs who understand where the business is headed. AI can generate ideas, but only collaboration turns those ideas into something usable, valuable, and real. Think of it as a powerful ingredient, but not the whole recipe. How To Strengthen Your UX Collaboration Skills? If collaboration doesn’t come naturally or hasn’t been a focus, that’s okay. Like any skill, it can be practiced and improved. Here are a few ways to level up: Cultivate curiosity about your teammates.Ask engineers what keeps them up at night. Learn what metrics your PMs care about. Understand the types of tickets the support team handles most frequently. The more you care about their challenges, the more they'll care about yours. Get comfortable facilitating.You don’t need to be a certified Design Sprint master, but learning how to run a structured conversation, align stakeholders, or synthesize different points of view is hugely valuable. Even a simple “What’s working? What’s not?” retro can be an amazing starting point in identifying where you need to focus next. Share early, share often.Don’t wait until your designs are polished to get input. Messy sketches and rough prototypes invite collaboration. When others feel like they’ve helped shape the work, they’re more invested in its success. Practice active listening.When someone critiques your work, don’t immediately defend. Pause. Ask follow-up questions. Reframe the feedback. Collaboration isn’t about consensus; it’s about finding a shared direction that can honour multiple truths. Co-own the outcome.Let go of your ego. The best UX work isn’t “your” work. It’s the result of many voices, skill sets, and conversations converging toward a solution that helps users. It’s not “I”, it’s “we” that will solve this problem together. Conclusion: UX Is A Team Sport Great design doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It comes from open dialogue, cross-functional understanding, and a shared commitment to solving real problems for real people. If there’s one thing I wish every early-career designer knew, it’s this: Collaboration is not a side skill. It’s the engine behind every meaningful design outcome. And for seasoned professionals, it’s the superpower that turns good teams into great ones. So next time you’re tempted to go heads-down and just “crank out a design,” pause to reflect. Ask who else should be in the room. And invite them in, not just to review your work, but to help create it. Because in the end, the best UX isn’t just what you make. It’s what you make together. Further Reading On SmashingMag “Presenting UX Research And Design To Stakeholders: The Power Of Persuasion,” Victor Yocco “Transforming The Relationship Between Designers And Developers,” Chris Day “Effective Communication For Everyday Meetings,” Andrii Zhdan “Preventing Bad UX Through Integrated Design Workflows,” Ceara Crawshaw

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

Warning: contains spoilers for Doctor Who episode “The Reality War.” In Doctor Who’s frankly mind-boggling season finale, the Doctor’s epic battle with the two Ranis, Omega, Conrad and a herd of skyscraper-sized bone creatures ultimately comes down to the restoration of a single life – and will require a sacrifice nobody expected. Spoilers ahead. It’s honestly difficult to know where to start with this episode. There are so many potential jumping-off points for discussion – though, somewhat tellingly, very few of them relate to the actual story that kicked off in earnest last week, which the episode itself seems positively impatient to get out of the way. It takes about 15 minutes for the Doctor to stop hugging every member of the extended supporting cast so the titular war can kick off, then by the halfway mark it’s over. Audacious? Yes, though that’s not to say it actually works. Do we start with Billie Piper? Or the unexpected and quite charming Jodie Whittaker cameo? Or the fact that they somehow snuck Ncuti Gatwa’s regeneration onto the screen without anybody knowing? No, because this season didn’t start with Billie Piper, or Jodie Whittaker, or the Rani, or Ruby Sunday. It didn’t even start with the Doctor. It started with Belinda Chandra. A character with so much potential – compassionate, uncertain, a little bit spiky, competent in a new and interesting way, compellingly distrustful of the Doctor. Potential that has, at this point, been mostly wasted. There is a point in “The Reality War” where Belinda basically tells the Doctor “OK I think I’m done contributing to this episode, good luck tho” and is left holding the baby in a soundproofed box where she can neither affect or be affected by the story happening outside. We even have an unintentionally comical cut back to her standing in there, doing nothing, saying nothing. It’s hard to think of a more literal way to sideline a key player. This is the co-lead of the show! The companion! And instead of having any real agency, instead of contributing to the plot in any meaningful way whatsoever, she functionally stops existing as a narrative presence. She doesn’t even get to go with the Doctor when he rushes off to save what turns out to be her child. And for what? So that the companion who supposedly left the show last season can have all the big dramatic moments instead? There were no advanced screeners available for this episode – given what happens at the end, it’s easy to see what they were scared might leak – so I’m writing with less distance than usual, reacting fairly rapidly to a first watch. But even with several days to digest, it’s difficult to imagine feeling anything other than bafflement at this storytelling choice. This is what Belinda’s whole story arc was leading to? This is the big twist? It’s truly one of the most bewildering decisions that Russell T Davies has made. It already kind of felt like he’d run out of meaningful stuff for Belinda to do after “The Well”, and there have been plenty of complaints about her sidelining in “Wish World”, but nobody could have predicted this. Sorry Belinda. And sorry Varada Sethu. You both deserved better. Now to Ncuti Gatwa. It’s pointless getting into behind-the-scenes gossip, or speculating on the actor’s motivations – if he only ever wanted to do two seasons, of course that’s his choice. But what are we to take away from his brief tenure in storytelling and character terms? A Doctor defined by his joy, his exuberance, his love for people (frustratingly, a point this episode hammers until it becomes tedious). A smile as powerful as a billion supernovas. A killer wardrobe. Even in lesser episodes, Gatwa’s energy has carried us along, infectious and delightful. It’s a genuine shock and a shame to see him go. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! Not least because, as with Belinda, it feels like his Doctor had unfulfilled potential. Was this episode truly a satisfying conclusion to Fifteen’s story? He gets plenty of good moments, big and small, and of course he plays the hell out of all of them. You could argue that sacrificing their life to save one child is about the most Doctor-ish thing possible. I wouldn’t necessarily argue with you. But that’s broad strokes stuff, generally applicable to any incarnation. What about this Doctor makes this specific set of circumstances a fitting send-off? Is it satisfying for this Doctor, a Doctor representing a particular streak of joyful hedonism, a Doctor who releases UNIT from their stifling roles in Conrad’s reactionary wish world via an explicit and triumphant assertion of his queerness, to go out in this way, for these reasons? It just doesn’t feel like that’s what these past two seasons – the bi-generation, his relationship with Rogue, his torturing of Kid, the seemingly forgotten Susan stuff – have been leading to. It’s a shame that the episode also feels so messy on a minute-to-minute level. There are individually effective moments – Dark Souls boss Omega is a fantastic visual, and him casually munching The Rani is enjoyably WTF (though I can’t help wishing they’d offed the other one and kept Archie Panjabi around). The moment with the Doctor and Belinda passing Poppy’s jacket back and forth and folding it until it vanishes is kind of jaw-dropping in how understated and upsetting it is. Anita’s first joke about being in hospitality is funny (the second and third iterations not so much). Millie Gibson does a great job, even if it feels like a misstep to give Ruby so much heavy lifting to do instead of Belinda. But the whole thing feels so all over the place that not even Gatwa’s megastar energy can hold it together. And now he’s gone, regenerated into Billie Piper. At this point, we have no idea when the show will be back. It’s impossible to know where this is going. And it’s hard not to feel torn – on the one hand, Billie Piper is a fantastic actor, and it’s fascinating to consider what her take on the role will be (though it should be noted that the credits pointedly don’t say “Billie Piper as The Doctor”, whatever that could mean). On the other hand, didn’t we just do this? We had the second Tennant Doctor, it was a lovely gift for fans that wrapped up some loose ends and gave everyone a big warm glow for the anniversary, and then we flew off with Ncuti Gatwa, an actor who couldn’t have screamed more loudly that things were going to be different. But now we’re looking backwards again. And as fun a surprise as Piper’s appearance is, as fully as she will no doubt own the role… it feels like another retrograde move. It’s Doctor Who celebrating itself, getting lost in its own mythos, turning inward. And so we end this oh-so promising season in a strange, unsettling place. An episode that doesn’t really seem to care that much about the story it claimed to be telling, which makes discussing it seem weirdly beside the point. A show in limbo. A whole incarnation of the Doctor gone, when we’d barely started to get to know him. A promising companion wasted. A showrunner everyone expected to be a safe pair of hands making some utterly confounding choices. Where do we go from here? Doctor Who series 15 is available to stream now on BBC iPlayer in the UK and on Disney+ around the world.

You cross the finish line after what feels like a perfect 10-mile run and your watch beeps triumphantly, displaying that beautiful round number: 10.00 miles. You're already composing your social media post in your head. Then you upload to Strava and—betrayal. Your activity shows 9.99 miles. It might seem like a bug, but as Strava explains, it's very much by design.Welcome to the "Strava Tax," the phenomenon that has spawned memes, advice, and probably a few extra loops around parking lots as runners desperately try to hit that magical round number.What's really happening when Strava rounds down?The Strava Tax isn't actually Strava being petty or skimming distance off your achievements. It's more of a collision between mathematical precision and the messy reality of how different devices handle GPS data.Here's the thing: when your watch displays 10.00 miles, that's often not what it actually recorded. The raw GPS data might show 9.993 miles, 9.996 miles, or 10.001 miles. Your watch rounds this to a nice, clean 10.00 for display purposes—because who wants to see 9.99634 miles on their wrist?So your watch and apps don't just display raw GPS data—they "improve" it. They smooth out GPS wobbles, correct for obvious errors, and sometimes add their own interpretations of where you actually went. Your Garmin might think you ran through that building (especially as AI maps take over), while your phone's GPS smooths your route to follow the sidewalk.Different manufacturers handle this data inconsistency in different ways. Even devices from the same manufacturer can display identical GPS data differently, depending on the model, firmware version, or even the specific algorithms running on each device. Some devices will show 1.00 km as soon as you hit 991 meters (0.991 km), while others wait until you actually complete a full kilometer. It's like having different definitions of what "close enough" means.Beyond that, mile definitions aren't actually universal. You'd think a mile is a mile, right? Not in the world of fitness devices. The precise definition is 1609.344 meters, but some devices use 1609 meters for simplicity. That small difference adds up over longer distances.But Strava takes a different approach. When displaying distances, Strava rounds down rather than using standard rounding rules. So that 9.993 miles becomes 9.99 miles on your activity page, not 10.00 miles.Why Strava rounds downStrava often sits in the middle of different manufacturers and devices. Imagine if Strava applied the same "enhancement" algorithms that your Garmin uses to data coming from an Apple Watch. The Apple data might get double-processed, potentially inflating distances. Or if it used Apple's data smoothing, it might actually reduce accuracy.Instead, Strava takes a conservative approach: it displays the data as close to raw as possible, using consistent rounding rules across all devices. This means sometimes your beautiful round numbers get truncated, but it also means a 10K from a Garmin is treated the same as a 10K from an Apple Watch.Zooming out, when it comes to fitness tracking, it's helpful to remember that the numbers we see are often more complicated than they appear. We all know GPS isn't perfect. Think about it: your device is trying to track your position using satellites 12,000+ miles above Earth. Trees, buildings, weather, and even solar activity can affect accuracy. How often to record points, how to connect the dots between points, how to filter out obvious errors, how to handle missing data—each manufacturer makes different choices. Strava's choice, in its own words, is to "err on the side of caution rather than let the accuracy of our records start to dilute."Tips to live with the Strava TaxAt the end of the day, there's a deeper reason why so many runners bond over Strava Tax memes. The Strava Tax taps into something more than just measurement accuracy—it hits our psychological relationship with round numbers. There's something deeply satisfying about completing exactly 10 miles, 5K, or 100 kilometers. These numbers feel complete, accomplished, worthy of celebration.When Strava displays 9.99 miles instead of 10.00, it doesn't just remove a hundredth of a mile—it removes the psychological satisfaction of hitting that milestone. It's the difference between "I ran 10 miles!" and "I ran...well, basically 10 miles."This is why you see runners doing extra loops around parking lots, cyclists riding circles in their driveways, and forum threads debating whether 9.99 miles "counts" as a 10-mile run. It's not really about the 0.01 miles—it's about the story we tell ourselves and others about our achievements.So what's a data-obsessed athlete to do? A few strategies:Embrace the range: Instead of fixating on hitting exactly 10.00 miles, think in ranges. A 9.98-10.02 mile run is essentially the same thing—you ran about 10 miles.Know your device: Learn how your specific watch or phone handles distance calculation. Some devices let you calibrate distance measurements or choose different GPS settings that might be more or less aggressive in their processing.Focus on trends: Day-to-day variations in distance measurement matter less than long-term trends. Are you running farther this month than last month? That's more meaningful than whether Tuesday's run was 5.99 or 6.01 miles.Plan ahead: If hitting exact distances is important to you, plan routes that give you a small buffer. Aim for 10.1 miles if you want to ensure you hit at least 10.0 on Strava.The Strava Tax might be annoying, but every time you glance at your watch and see a distance, remember: there's a satellite constellation, multiple algorithms, and several companies' worth of engineering decisions all working together to give you that number. And sometimes, despite all that technology, you still end up with 9.99 miles. But hey—you still ran the distance. The GPS satellites aren't judging you, and neither should you.