Secretly working multiple full-time remote jobs may sound like a nightmare — but Americans looking to make their financial dreams come true willingly hustle for it.Over the past two years, Business Insider has interviewed more than two dozen "overemployed" workers, many of whom work in tech roles. They tend to work long hours but say the extra earnings are worth it to pay off student debt, save for an early retirement, and afford expensive vacations and weight-loss drugs. Many started working multiple jobs during the pandemic, when remote job openings soared.One example is Sarah, who's on track to earn about $300,000 this year by secretly working two remote IT jobs. Over the last few years, Sarah said the extra income from job juggling has helped her save more than $100,000 in her 401(k)s, pay off $17,000 in credit card debt, and furnish her home.Sarah, who's in her 50s and lives in the Southeast, said working 12-hour days is worth it for the job security. This security came in handy when she was laid off from one of her jobs last year. She's since found a new second gig."I want to ride this out until I retire," Sarah previously told BI. Business Insider verified her identity, but she asked to use a pseudonym, citing fears of professional repercussions. BI spoke to one boss who caught an employee secretly working another job and fired him. Job juggling could breach some employment contracts and be a fireable offense.Overemployed workers like Sarah told BI how they've landed extra roles, juggled the workload, and stayed under the radar. Some said they rely on tactics like blocking off calendars, using separate devices, minimizing meetings, and sticking to flexible roles with low oversight. While job juggling could have professional repercussions or lead to burnout, and some readers have questioned the ethics of this working arrangement, many workers have told BI they don't feel guilty about their job juggling — and that the financial benefits generally outweigh the downsides and risks. In recent years, some have struggled to land new remote gigs, due in part to hiring slowdowns and return-to-office mandates. Most said they plan to continue pursuing overemployment as long as they can.Read the stories ahead to learn how some Americans have managed the workload, risks, and stress of working multiple jobs — and transformed their finances.

Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to date back to the European wars of religion. According to most historians, the first barricade went up in Paris in 1588; the word derives from the French barriques, or barrels, spontaneously put together. They have been assembled from the most diverse materials, from cobblestones, tyres, newspapers, dead horses and bags of ice (during Kyiv’s Euromaidan in 2013–14), to omnibuses and e‑scooters. Their tactical logic is close to that of guerrilla warfare: the authorities have to take the barricades in order to claim victory; all that those manning them have to do to prevail is to hold them.  The 19th century was the golden age for blocking narrow, labyrinthine streets. Paris had seen barricades go up nine times in the period before the Second Empire; during the July 1830 Revolution alone, 4,000 barricades had been erected (roughly one for every 200 Parisians). These barricades would not only stop, but also trap troops; people would then throw stones from windows or pour boiling water onto the streets. Georges‑Eugène Haussmann, Napoleon III’s prefect of Paris, famously created wide boulevards to make blocking by barricade more difficult and moving the military easier, and replaced cobblestones with macadam – a surface of crushed stone. As Flaubert observed in his Dictionary of Accepted Ideas: ‘Macadam: has cancelled revolutions. No more means to make barricades. Nevertheless rather inconvenient.’   Lead image: Barricades, as we know them today, are thought to have originated in early modern France. A colour engraving attributed to Achille‑Louis Martinet depicts the defence of a barricade during the 1830 July Revolution. Credit: Paris Musées / Musée Carnavalet – Histoire de Paris. Above: the socialist political thinker and activist Louis Auguste Blanqui – who was imprisoned by every regime that ruled France between 1815 and 1880 – drew instructions for how to build an effective barricade Under Napoleon III, Baron Haussmann widened Paris’s streets in his 1853–70 renovation of the city, making barricading more difficult Credit: Old Books Images / Alamy ‘On one hand, [the authorities] wanted to favour the circulation of ideas,’ reactionary intellectual Louis Veuillot observed apropos the ambiguous liberalism of the latter period of Napoleon III’s Second Empire. ‘On the other, to ensure the circulation of regiments.’ But ‘anti‑insurgency hardware’, as Justinien Tribillon has called it, also served to chase the working class out of the city centre: Haussmann’s projects amounted to a gigantic form of real-estate speculation, and the 1871 Paris Commune that followed constituted not just a short‑lived anarchist experiment featuring enormous barricades; it also signalled the return of the workers to the centre and, arguably, revenge for their dispossession.    By the mid‑19th century, observers questioned whether barricades still had practical meaning. Gottfried Semper’s barricade, constructed for the 1849 Dresden uprising, had proved unconquerable, but Friedrich Engels, one‑time ‘inspector of barricades’ in the Elberfeld insurrection of the same year, already suggested that the barricades’ primary meaning was now moral rather than military – a point to be echoed by Leon Trotsky in the subsequent century. Barricades symbolised bravery and the will to hold out among insurrectionists, and, not least, determination rather to destroy one’s possessions – and one’s neighbourhood – than put up with further oppression.   Not only self‑declared revolutionaries viewed things this way: the reformist Social Democrat leader Eduard Bernstein observed that ‘the barricade fight as a political weapon of the people has been completely eliminated due to changes in weapon technology and cities’ structures’. Bernstein was also picking up on the fact that, in the era of industrialisation, contention happened at least as much on the factory floor as on the streets. The strike, not the food riot or the defence of workers’ quartiers, became the paradigmatic form of conflict. Joshua Clover has pointed out in his 2016 book Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings, that the price of labour, rather than the price of goods, caused people to confront the powerful. Blocking production grew more important than blocking the street. ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn’ Today, it is again blocking – not just people streaming along the streets in large marches – that is prominently associated with protests. Disrupting circulation is not only an important gesture in the face of climate emergency; blocking transport is a powerful form of protest in an economic system focused on logistics and just‑in‑time distribution. Members of Insulate Britain and Germany’s Last Generation super‑glue themselves to streets to stop car traffic to draw attention to the climate emergency; they have also attached themselves to airport runways. They form a human barricade of sorts, immobilising traffic by making themselves immovable.   Today’s protesters have made themselves consciously vulnerable. They in fact follow the advice of US civil rights’ Bayard Rustin who explained: ‘The only weapons we have are our bodies, and we need to tuck them in places so wheels don’t turn.’ Making oneself vulnerable might increase the chances of a majority of citizens seeing the importance of the cause which those engaged in civil disobedience are pursuing. Demonstrations – even large, unpredictable ones – are no longer sufficient. They draw too little attention and do not compel a reaction. Naomi Klein proposed the term ‘blockadia’ as ‘a roving transnational conflict zone’ in which people block extraction – be it open‑pit mines, fracking sites or tar sands pipelines – with their bodies. More often than not, these blockades are organised by local people opposing the fossil fuel industry, not environmental activists per se. Blockadia came to denote resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline as well as Canada’s First Nations‑led movement Idle No More. In cities, blocking can be accomplished with highly mobile structures. Like the barricade of the 19th century, they can be quickly assembled, yet are difficult to move; unlike old‑style barricades, they can also be quickly disassembled, removed and hidden (by those who have the engineering and architectural know‑how). Think of super tripods, intricate ‘protest beacons’ based on tensegrity principles, as well as inflatable cobblestones, pioneered by the artist‑activists of Tools for Action (and as analysed in Nick Newman’s recent volume Protest Architecture).   As recently as 1991, newly independent Latvia defended itself against Soviet tanks with the popular construction of barricades, in a series of confrontations that became known as the Barikādes Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Inversely, roadblocks can be used by police authorities to stop demonstrations and gatherings from taking place – protesters are seen removing such infrastructure in Dhaka during a general strike in 1999 Credit: REUTERS / Rafiqur Rahman / Bridgeman These inflatable objects are highly flexible, but can also be protective against police batons. They pose an awkward challenge to the authorities, who often end up looking ridiculous when dealing with them, and, as one of the inventors pointed out, they are guaranteed to create a media spectacle. This was also true of the 19th‑century barricade: people posed for pictures in front of them. As Wolfgang Scheppe, a curator of Architecture of the Barricade (currently on display at the Arsenale Institute for Politics of Representation in Venice), explains, these images helped the police to find Communards and mete out punishments after the end of the anarchist experiment. Much simpler structures can also be highly effective. In 2019, protesters in Hong Kong filled streets with little archways made from just three ordinary bricks: two standing upright, one resting on top. When touched, the falling top one would buttress the other two, and effectively block traffic. In line with their imperative of ‘be water’, protesters would retreat when the police appeared, but the ‘mini‑Stonehenges’ would remain and slow down the authorities. Today, elaborate architectures of protest, such as Extinction Rebellion’s ‘tensegrity towers’, are used to blockade roads and distribution networks – in this instance, Rupert Murdoch’s News UK printworks in Broxbourne, for the media group’s failure to report the climate emergency accurately Credit: Extinction Rebellion In June 2025, protests erupted in Los Angeles against the Trump administration’s deportation policies. Demonstrators barricaded downtown streets using various objects, including the pink public furniture designed by design firm Rios for Gloria Molina Grand Park. LAPD are seen advancing through tear gas Credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images Roads which radicals might want to target are not just ones in major metropoles and fancy post‑industrial downtowns. Rather, they might block the arteries leading to ‘fulfilment centres’ and harbours with container shipping. The model is not only Occupy Wall Street, which had initially called for the erection of ‘peaceful barricades’, but also the Occupy that led to the Oakland port shutdown in 2011. In short, such roadblocks disrupt what Phil Neel has called a ‘hinterland’ that is often invisible, yet crucial for contemporary capitalism. More recently, Extinction Rebellion targeted Amazon distribution centres in three European countries in November 2021; in the UK, they aimed to disrupt half of all deliveries on a Black Friday.   Will such blockades just anger consumers who, after all, are not present but are impatiently waiting for packages at home? One of the hopes associated with the traditional barricade was always that they might create spaces where protesters, police and previously indifferent citizens get talking; French theorists even expected them to become ‘a machine to produce the people’. That could be why military technology has evolved so that the authorities do not have to get close to the barricade: tear gas was first deployed against those on barricades before it was used in the First World War; so‑called riot control vehicles can ever more easily crush barricades. The challenge, then, for anyone who wishes to block is also how to get in other people’s faces – in order to have a chance to convince them of their cause.        2025-06-11 Kristina Rapacki Share

There are a few things an interior designer wouldn’t dare put in a bathroom. Carpet? Definitely not. Only overhead lighting? Design blasphemy. But there is one feature that finds its way into the bathroom all the time—rarely questioned, though maybe it should be—and that’s artwork. We get it: who doesn’t want to add a little personality to a space that otherwise is quite functional? Still, design fans are often split on the addition, especially when it comes to certain types of art. Related StoriesAn oil painting resting above a clawfoot bathtub or a framed graphic print next to a mirror infuses your bathroom with warmth and storytelling, a very necessary addition to a space that's often centered around pure function. “In a bathroom, where surfaces tend to be hard and the layout driven by function, a thoughtful piece can shift the entire ambience,” shares interior designer Linette Dai. “It brings dimension to the everyday.”According to designer Ali Milch, art can transform the entire experience from “routine to restorative.” But, is it the bathroom the best (read: most hygienic) place to put a favorite photo or heirloom painting? With moisture in the mix and potential for it being in the “splash zone” (sorry, but it's true), you need to be considerate of the art you bring in and where it’s placed. To help guide your curation, we chatted with interior designers and experts on how to integrate art into your space in a way that is both beautiful and bathroom-appropriate.Be Wary of HumidityMaybe this one is obvious, but when placing art in the bathroom, be sure to look for materials that aren’t prone to water damage. “We recommend framing art with a sealed backing and UV-protective acrylic instead of glass, which is both lighter and more resistant to moisture—an important consideration in steamy bathrooms,” Cathy Glazer, founder of Artfully Walls, shares. “Plus, acrylic is much safer than glass if dropped, especially on hard tile floors, as it won’t shatter.”Dai agrees that acrylic is the way to go when putting framed works into the bathroom, “I usually recommend acrylic glazing to avoid moisture damage. For humid environments, prints or photography mounted directly on aluminum or face-mounted under acrylic are durable and beautiful.”Make It Your Creative CanvasCourtsey of Ali MilchUnless you have a sprawling space, chances are your bathroom’s square footage is limited. Rather than viewing this as a constraint, think about it as an opportunity to get creative. “Because they’re smaller and more self-contained, [bathrooms] invite experimentation—think unexpected pieces, playful themes, or striking colors,” shares Glazer. “Art helps turn the bathroom into a moment of surprise and style.”“It doesn’t have to feel stuffy or overly formal,” Milch adds. “In a recent Tribeca project, we installed a kitschy iMessage bubble with the text ‘I love you too’ on the wall facing the entry. It’s a lighthearted, personal touch.”While it’s fun to get whimsical with your bathroom art (pro tip: secondhand stores can be a great place for unique finds), Dai also suggests still approaching it with a curated eye and saving anything that is precious or too high-maintenance for the powder room. “In full baths, I tend to be more selective based on how the space is ventilated and used day-to-day,” she shares. “Powder rooms, on the other hand, offer more freedom. That’s where I love incorporating oil paintings. They bring soul and a sense of history, and can make even the smallest space feel elevated.”Keep Materials And Size In MindAnother material worth considering adding? Ceramics. “Ceramic pieces also work beautifully, especially when there’s open shelving or decorative niches to display them,” shares Milch. Be wary of larger-scale sculptures, as they could potentially be slightly disruptive to the space. “Any type of artwork can work in a bathroom depending on the spatial allowances, but the typical bathroom is suited to wall hangings versus sculptures,” says Sarah Latham of L Interiors.And don’t forget to be mindful of scale. “As for size, I always opt for larger pieces in smaller spaces, it may feel counter-intuitive, but it makes a tight space feel larger,” Anastasia Casey of The Interior Collective shares. “I look for works that complement the finishes and palette without overwhelming it.”Let It Set The ToneCourtesy of Annie SloanArtwork in the bathroom doesn’t just decorate it; it can define it. “In bathrooms, there’s often less visual competition—no bold furniture or patterned textiles—so the art naturally becomes more of a focal point,” Dai adds. “That’s why the mood it sets matters so much. I think more intentionally about subject matter—what someone will see up close, often in moments of solitude,” shares Dai. Whether it’s a serene landscape photo or storied painting, don’t underestimate what a piece of art can do for the most utilitarian room in the house. With the right materials and placement, it can hold its own—moisture and all—while adding a design moment and feels considered and unexpected.Follow House Beautiful on Instagram and TikTok.

We are told to customize, expand, and provide more options, but that might be a silent killer for our conversion rate. Using behavioral psychology and modern product design, this piece explains why brands like Apple use fewer, smarter choices to convert better.Image generated using ChatgptJam-packed decisionsImagine standing in a supermarket aisle in front of the jam section. How do you decide which jam to buy? You could go for your usual jam, or maybe this is your first time buying jam. Either way, a choice has to be made. Or does it?You may have seen the vast number of choices, gotten overwhelmed, and walked away. The same scenario was reflected in the findings of a 2000 study by Iyengar and Lepper that explored how the number of choice options can affect decision-making.Iyengar and Lepper set up two scenarios; the first customers in a random supermarket being offered 24 jams for a free tasting. In another, they were offered only 6. One would expect that the first scenario would see more sales. After all, more variety means a happier customer. However:Image created using CanvaWhile 60% of customers stopped by for a tasting, only 3% ended up making a purchase.On the other hand, when faced with 6 options, 40% of customers stopped by, but 30% of this number ended up making a purchase.The implications of the study were evident. While one may think that more choices are better when faced with the same, decision-makers prefer fewer.This phenomenon is known as the Paradox of Choice. More choice leads to less satisfaction because one gets overwhelmed.This analysis paralysis results from humans being cognitive misers that is decisions that require deeper thinking feel exhausting and like they come at a cognitive cost. In such scenarios, we tend not to make a choice or choose a default option. Even after a decision has been made, in many cases, regret or the thought of whether you have made the ‘right’ choice can linger.A sticky situationHowever, a 2010 meta-analysis by Benjamin Scheibehenne was unable to replicate the findings. Scheibehenne questioned whether it was choice overload or information overload that was the issue. Other researchers have argued that it is the lack of meaningful choice that affects satisfaction. Additionally, Barry Schwartz, a renowned psychologist and the author of the book ‘The Paradox of Choice: Why Less Is More,’ also later suggested that the paradox of choice diminishes in the presence of a person’s knowledge of the options and if the choices have been presented well.Does that mean the paradox of choice was an overhyped notion? I conducted a mini-study to test this hypothesis.From shelves to spreadsheets: testing the jam jar theoryI created a simple scatterplot in R using a publicly available dataset from the Brazilian e-commerce site Olist. Olist is Brazil’s largest department store on marketplaces. After delivery, customers are asked to fill out a satisfaction survey with a rating or comment option. I analysed the relationship between the number of distinct products in a category (choices) and the average customer review (satisfaction).Scatterplot generated in R using the Olist datasetBased on the almost horizontal regression line on the plot above, it is evident that more choice does not lead to more satisfaction. Furthermore, categories with fewer than 200 products tend to have average review scores between 4.0 and 4.3. Whereas, categories with more than 1,000 products do not have a higher average satisfaction score, with some even falling below 4.0. This suggests that more choices do not equal more satisfaction and could also reduce satisfaction levels.These findings support the Paradox of Choice, and the dataset helps bring theory into real-world commerce. A curation of lesser, well-presented, and differentiated options could lead to more customer satisfaction.Image created using CanvaFurthermore, the plot could help suggest a more nuanced perspective; people want more choices, as this gives them autonomy. However, beyond a certain point, excessive choice overwhelms rather than empowers, leaving people dissatisfied. Many product strategies reflect this insight: the goal is to inspire confident decision-making rather than limiting freedom. A powerful example of this shift in thinking comes from Apple’s history.Simple tastes, sweeter decisionsImage source: Apple InsiderIt was 1997, and Steve Jobs had just made his return to Apple. The company at the time offered 40 different products; however, its sales were declining. Jobs made one question the company’s mantra,“What are the four products we should be building?”The following year, Apple saw itself return to profitability after introducing the iMac G3. While its success can be attributed to the introduction of a new product line and increased efficiency, one cannot deny that the reduction in the product line simplified the decision-making process for its consumers.To this day, Apple continues to implement this strategy by having a few SKUs and confident defaults.Apple does not just sell premium products; it sells a premium decision-making experience by reducing friction in decision-making for the consumer.Furthermore, a 2015 study based on analyzing scenarios where fewer choice options led to increased sales found the following mitigating factors in buying choices:Time Pressure: Easier and quicker choices led to more sales.Complexity of options: The easier it was to understand what a product was, the better the outcome.Clarity of Preference: How easy it was to compare alternatives and the clarity of one’s preferences.Motivation to Optimize: Whether the consumer wanted to put in the effort to find the ‘best’ option.Picking the right spreadWhile the extent of the validity of the Paradox of Choice is up for debate, its impact cannot be denied. It is still a helpful model that can be used to drive sales and boost customer satisfaction. So, how can one use it as a part of your business’s strategy?Remember, what people want isn’t 50 good choices. They want one confident, easy-to-understand decision that they think they will not regret.Here are some common mistakes that confuse consumers and how you can apply the Jam Jar strategy to curate choices instead:Image is created using CanvaToo many choices lead to decision fatigue.Offering many SKU options usually causes customers to get overwhelmed. Instead, try curating 2–3 strong options that will cover the majority of their needs.2. Being dependent on the users to use filters and specificationsWhen users have to compare specifications themselves, they usually end up doing nothing. Instead, it is better to replace filters with clear labels like “Best for beginners” or “Best for oily skin.”3. Leaving users to make comparisons by themselvesToo many options can make users overwhelmed. Instead, offer default options to show what you recommend. This instills within them a sense of confidence when making the final decision.4. More transparency does not always mean more trustInformation overload never leads to conversions. Instead, create a thoughtful flow that guides the users to the right choices.5. Users do not aim for optimizationAssuming that users will weigh every detail before making a decision is not rooted in reality. In most cases, they will go with their gut. Instead, highlight emotional outcomes, benefits, and uses instead of numbers.6. Not onboarding users is a critical mistakeHoping that users will easily navigate a sea of products without guidance is unrealistic. Instead, use onboarding tools like starter kits, quizzes, or bundles that act as starting points.7. Variety for the sake of varietyUsers crave clarity more than they crave variety. Instead, focus on simplicity when it comes to differentiation.And lastly, remember that while the paradox of choice is a helpful tool in your business strategy arsenal, more choice is not inherently bad. It is the lack of structure in the decision-making process that is the problem. Clear framing will always make decision-making a seamless experience for both your consumers and your business.How jam jars explain Apple’s success was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

House of the Future | 1956 Photograph Exhibited at the 1956 Ideal Home Exhibition in London, the House of the Future by Alison and Peter Smithson is a visionary prototype that challenges conventions of domesticity. Set within the context of post-war Britain, a period marked by austerity and emerging optimism, the project explored the intersection of technology, material innovation, and evolving social dynamics. The Smithsons, already recognized for their theoretical rigor and critical stance toward mainstream modernism, sought to push the boundaries of domestic architecture. In the House of the Future, they offered not merely a dwelling but a speculative environment that engaged with the promise and anxieties of the atomic age. House of the Future Technical Information Architects: Alison and Peter Smithson Location: Ideal Home Exhibition, London, United Kingdom Client: Daily Mail Ideal Home Exhibition  Gross Area: 90 m2 | 970 Sq. Ft. Construction Year: 1956 Photographs: Canadian Centre for Architecture and Unknown Photographer The House of the Future should be a serious attempt to visualize the future of our daily living in the light of modern knowledge and available materials. – Alison and Peter Smithson 1 House of the Future Photographs 1956 Photograph © Klaas Vermaas | 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph 1956 Photograph Design Intent and Spatial Organization At the heart of the House of the Future lies a radical rethinking of spatial organization. Departing from conventional room hierarchies, the design promotes an open, fluid environment. Walls dissolve into curved partitions and adjustable elements, allowing for flexible reinterpretation of domestic spaces. Sleeping, dining, and social areas are loosely demarcated, creating a dynamic continuity that anticipates the contemporary concept of adaptable, multi-functional living. Circulation is conceived as an experiential sequence rather than a rigid path. Visitors enter through an air-lock-like vestibule, an explicit nod to the futuristic theme, and are drawn into an environment that eschews right angles and conventional thresholds. The Smithsons’ emphasis on flexibility and continuous movement within the house reflects their belief that domestic architecture must accommodate the evolving rhythms of life. Materiality, Technology, and the Future Materiality in the House of the Future embodies the optimism of the era. Plastics and synthetic finishes dominate the interior, forming seamless surfaces that evoke a sense of sterility and futility. Often associated with industrial production, these materials signaled a departure from traditional domestic textures. The smooth, malleable surfaces of the house reinforce the Smithsons’ embrace of prefabrication and modularity. Technological integration is a key theme. The design includes built-in appliances and concealed mechanical systems, hinting at a utopian and disquieting automated lifestyle. Bathrooms, kitchens, and sleeping pods are incorporated as interchangeable modules, underscoring the house as a system rather than a static structure. In doing so, the Smithsons prefigured later discourses on the “smart home” and the seamless integration of technology into daily life. This material and technological strategy reflects a critical understanding of domestic labor and convenience. The house’s self-contained gadgets and synthetic surfaces suggest a future in which maintenance and domestic chores are minimized, freeing inhabitants to engage with broader cultural and social pursuits. Legacy and Influence The House of the Future’s influence resonates far beyond its exhibition. It prefigured the radical experimentation of groups like Archigram and the metabolist visions of the 1960s. Its modular approach and embrace of technology also foreshadowed the high-tech movement’s fascination with flexibility and systems thinking. While the project was ephemeral, a temporary installation at a trade fair, its theoretical provocations endure. It questioned how architecture could not only house but also anticipate and shape new living forms. Moreover, it crystallized the Smithsons’ ongoing interrogation of architecture’s social role, from their later brutalist housing schemes to urban design theories. In retrospect, the House of the Future is less of a resolved design proposal and more of an architectural manifesto. It embodies a critical tension: the optimism of technological progress and the need for architecture to respond to human adaptability and social evolution. As we confront contemporary challenges like climate crisis, digital living, and shifting social paradigms, the Smithsons’ speculative experiment remains an evocative reminder that the architecture of tomorrow must be as thoughtful and provocative as the House of the Future. House of the Future Plans Axonometric View | © Alison and Peter Smithson via CCA Floor Plan | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Floor Plan | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA Section | © Alison and Peter Smithson, via CCA House of the Future Image Gallery About Alison and Peter Smithson Alison and Peter Smithson were British architects and influential thinkers who emerged in the mid-20th century, celebrated for their critical reimagining of modern architecture. Their work, including projects like the House of the Future, the Robin Hood Gardens housing complex, and the Upper Lawn Solar Pavilion, consistently challenged conventional notions of domesticity, urbanism, and materiality. Central to their practice was a belief in architecture’s capacity to shape social life, emphasizing adaptability, flexibility, and the dynamic interactions between buildings and their users. They were pivotal in bridging the gap between post-war modernism and the experimental architectural movements of the 1960s and 1970s. Credits and Additional Notes Banham, Reyner. Theory and Design in the First Machine Age. MIT Press, 1960. Forty, Adrian. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. Thames & Hudson, 2000. Smithson, Alison, and Peter Smithson. The Charged Void: Architecture. Monacelli Press, 2001. OASE Journal. “Houses of the Future: 1956 and Beyond.” OASE 75, 2007. Vidler, Anthony. Histories of the Immediate Present: Inventing Architectural Modernism. MIT Press, 2008. Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA). “House of the Future.”

A Microsoft-backed AI startup that relied on hundreds of human workers posing as chatbots has collapsed into bankruptcy amid fraud allegations. ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP via Getty Images A once-hyped AI startup backed by Microsoft has filed for bankruptcy after it was revealed that its so-called artificial intelligence was actually hundreds of human workers in India pretending to be chatbots.Builder.ai, a London-based company previously valued at $1.5 billion, marketed its platform as an AI-powered solution that made building apps as simple as ordering pizza. Its virtual assistant, "Natasha," was supposed to generate software using artificial intelligence.In reality, nearly 700 engineers in India were manually coding customer requests behind the scenes, the Times of India reported.The ruse began to collapse in May when lender Viola Credit seized $37 million from the company's accounts, uncovering that Builder.ai had inflated its 2024 revenue projections by 300%. An audit revealed the company generated just $50 million in revenue, far below the $220 million it claimed to investors.A Wall Street Journal report from 2019 had already questioned Builder.ai's AI claims, and a former executive sued the company that same year for allegedly misleading investors and overstating its technical capabilities.Despite that, the company raised over $445 million from big names including Microsoft and the Qatar Investment Authority. Builder.ai's collapse has triggered a federal investigation in the U.S., with prosecutors in New York requesting financial documents and customer records.Founder Sachin Dev Duggal stepped down earlier this year and was replaced by Manpreet Ratia, who reportedly uncovered the company's internal misrepresentations.The company now owes millions to Amazon and Microsoft in cloud computing costs and has laid off around 1,000 employees. On LinkedIn, the company announced its entry into insolvency proceedings, citing "historic challenges and past decisions" that strained its finances.The fallout is seen as one of the biggest failures of the post-ChatGPT AI investment boom and has renewed scrutiny of "AI washing"—the trend of rebranding manual services as artificial intelligence to secure funding.© 2025 Latin Times. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.

Elden Ring Nightreign is now up to 3.5 million copies sold after five days on sale, with its Steam user review rating improving from 'mixed' to 'mostly positive.'Elden Ring was a massive hit, selling 30 million since going on sale in 2022, and it seems unlikely that Nightreign will come close to matching that success. For better context, the Shadow of the Erdtree expansion sold 5 million copies within three days of its release in 2024.FromSoftware’s multiplayer spin-off had launched to 2 million sales in just a day, but with a 'mixed' rating on Valve's platform.Much of the initial negative sentiment revolved around Nightreign’s brutal solo experience, its lack of duos co-op, lack of voice chat, and other archaic mechanics. That age-old multiplayer struggle to find enough friends to make up a coordinated three-player group is very much a part of the Elden Ring Nightreign experience, too.PlayAs explained in IGN's Elden Ring Nightreign review: "Let’s get the most important caveat out of the way first: if you are hoping to tackle Nightreign entirely solo, and are anything less than a hardcore Elden Ring player that actively seeks out ways to make that already difficult game even more challenging, Nightreign isn’t for you. Yes, there is technically a single-player option, but it is so poorly balanced that I would be shocked if it isn’t patched and adjusted within the first month of release. And this is coming from someone who lives and breathes these types of games."But on Monday, FromSoftware released a patch to make solo play much easier, and despite matchmaking problems over the weekend, sentiment has improved.Last week, producer Yasuhiro Kitao took to social media to comment on Elden Ring Nightreign’s early sales success and to thank players for giving the game a go despite its quirks.Every IGN FromSoftware Game Review“Nightreign has some peculiar aspects to its game design and is different from our recent titles in various ways,” Kitao said. “Nonetheless, many of you have bravely jumped into this world, and for that we're immensely grateful.“As with Demon's Souls or Sekiro, it may be confounding at first, but just like those games, Nightreign offers its own challenges and experiences. Once you overcome the initial hurdle, it'll surely provide a sense of accomplishment that's also its very own.“We hope you enjoy it.”So, what happens next? FromSoftware said that in addition to the DLC releasing later this year, new additions will be “gradually implemented,” including enhanced fights against existing Nightlords starting this month (June), as well as Duo Expeditions at a later date.”The addition of duos will come as some relief to players who have questioned its omission from launch. Elden Ring Nightreign drops players into the shifting lands of Limveld, exploring and fighting for survival either solo or in groups of three. There is no way to play two-player co-op.In IGN's interview with Elden Ring Nightreign director Junya Ishizaki, the Nightreign lead developer discussed the choice to lean on solos and trios as the core experience options. When asked why there's no option for a pair of players to drop in together without a matchmade third player, Ishizaki said it was overlooked."The simple answer is that this is simply something that was overlooked during development as just a two-player option, so we're very sorry about that," said Ishizaki. "As we said before, we set out to make this a multiplayer co-op game for three players, balanced for three players, so that was the main focus and it's at the core of Nightreign."Of course, I myself as a player understand that and often want times where I'm just playing myself, so this is something that we considered from the start," Ishizaki continued."And so we did put a lot of effort into creating this experience that was playable for solo players in as much as the rules and new systems allowed. So in putting all our efforts into that aspect, we kind of overlooked and neglected the duos aspect, but this is something that we are looking at and considering for post-launch support as well."This means that if you're playing with just your favorite duos partner, you have to accept a random third into your game. Playing trios is very much what Elden Ring Nightreign is built around.We’ve got plenty of Nightreign tips and tricks to help you take down all the eight Nightlord Bosses, and if you’re wondering how to unlock the two locked Nightfarer Classes, check out How to Unlock the Revenant and How to Unlock the Duchess, plus How to Change Characters.Wesley is Director, News at IGN. Find him on Twitter at @wyp100. You can reach Wesley at wesley_yinpoole@ign.com or confidentially at wyp100@proton.me.

Strava drama has become the name of the game in the fitness tracking world. I suppose when your favorite fitness app also includes a social media element, a little tension is inevitable. Add competitive leaderboards into the mix, and you've got a recipe for intrigue that would make reality TV producers salivate.If you're tuned into leaderboard controversies, you'll know that runners and cyclists are deeply divided on whether the platform is doing too much—or not nearly enough—to combat fake entries. If you ask me, when some users are deploying electric unicycles to dominate local climbing segments, that's evidence enough something needs to be done. And now Strava is doing something: The company has announced the launch of AI-enabled Leaderboard Integrity, a new tool intended to separate legitimate athletes from creative cheaters. How Strava is using AI to root out cheatersFor the uninitiated, the reason people cheat is usually to claim King of the Mountain (KOM) and Queen of the Mountain (QOM) titles—coveted crowns that represent the fastest times on specific segments. Peruse the Strava subreddit for a few minutes, and you'll be sure to see grievances about leaderboard cheaters. Strava's latest update is designed to identify and flag "irregular, improbable, or impossible" performance recorded on the platform. The system acts as a digital referee, capable of detecting when an impossibly fast e-bike ride has been mislabeled as a regular cycling effort, then politely prompting users to correct their entries.The technology goes beyond simple speed checks. Strava revealed in February that its machine learning system analyzes activities using 57 different factors, including speed patterns, elevation gains, and acceleration data, to determine when something doesn't add up. The result of this crackdown? Strava has already removed 4.45 million activities from its platform. The deleted activities generally fall into two main categories: entries uploaded with the wrong sport type (like labeling an e-bike ride as regular cycling) and activities recorded while in a vehicle. To be fair, the latter category likely includes everything from users forgetting to stop their tracking while driving home, to more deliberate attempts to game the system by recording car or train journeys as part of legitimate running segments.How Strava users are reactingThe fitness community's reaction to Strava's cheater detection has been characteristically split. Serious athletes and segment hunters generally applaud the stricter measures—after all, leaderboard integrity is what makes the app's competitive element at all meaningful. If the numbers are fraud, what's the point?However, some users worry about false positives—that is, legitimate exceptional performances getting flagged by overzealous algorithms. And the AI is overzealous: Some users have commented that their personal records are being deleted without any sort of prompt or ability to dispute the AI's findings. If you're a serious athlete, seeing your genuinely impressive times being questioned by an automated system that might not account for peak human performance is naturally going to rankle.Outside of leaderboard integrity, Strava's AI initiatives are generally overzealous and inaccurate. I'm not alone in noticing how absurd its new route generation can get. I'm talking routes with concentric loops, cutting through buildings, major roads instead of residential paths, and other issues that will make no sense to a real human moving through the world. Given the immense heat map data that we've all effectively donated to Strava, to be given such shoddy AI-generated routes is fairly bonkers, and it's hardly surprising that its cheat-detecting tools would also be less than precise.The bottom lineControversy aside, Strava's competitive features should be more about personal motivation than serious competition. If cheater detection is ruining your experience, I recommend some perspective. Try not to let it spoil what should be a fun, social fitness experience—especially given the AI tools don't (yet) seem accurate enough to reflect reality.But with 4.45 million activities already in the digital trash bin, Strava's message is clear: The days of easily gaming the leaderboards are over. Of course, as fitness tracking technology continues to evolve, so too will the methods people use to fool the system. Hopefully Strava stays one step ahead of creative rule-benders.

DeepSeek’s latest AI model, R1 0528, has raised eyebrows for a further regression on free speech and what users can discuss. “A big step backwards for free speech,” is how one prominent AI researcher summed it upAI researcher and popular online commentator ‘xlr8harder’ put the model through its paces, sharing findings that suggests DeepSeek is increasing its content restrictions.“DeepSeek R1 0528 is substantially less permissive on contentious free speech topics than previous DeepSeek releases,” the researcher noted. What remains unclear is whether this represents a deliberate shift in philosophy or simply a different technical approach to AI safety.What’s particularly fascinating about the new model is how inconsistently it applies its moral boundaries.In one free speech test, when asked to present arguments supporting dissident internment camps, the AI model flatly refused. But, in its refusal, it specifically mentioned China’s Xinjiang internment camps as examples of human rights abuses.Yet, when directly questioned about these same Xinjiang camps, the model suddenly delivered heavily censored responses. It seems this AI knows about certain controversial topics but has been instructed to play dumb when asked directly.“It’s interesting though not entirely surprising that it’s able to come up with the camps as an example of human rights abuses, but denies when asked directly,” the researcher observed.China criticism? Computer says noThis pattern becomes even more pronounced when examining the model’s handling of questions about the Chinese government.Using established question sets designed to evaluate free speech in AI responses to politically sensitive topics, the researcher discovered that R1 0528 is “the most censored DeepSeek model yet for criticism of the Chinese government.”Where previous DeepSeek models might have offered measured responses to questions about Chinese politics or human rights issues, this new iteration frequently refuses to engage at all – a worrying development for those who value AI systems that can discuss global affairs openly.There is, however, a silver lining to this cloud. Unlike closed systems from larger companies, DeepSeek’s models remain open-source with permissive licensing.“The model is open source with a permissive license, so the community can (and will) address this,” noted the researcher. This accessibility means the door remains open for developers to create versions that better balance safety with openness.The situation reveals something quite sinister about how these systems are built: they can know about controversial events while being programmed to pretend they don’t, depending on how you phrase your question.As AI continues its march into our daily lives, finding the right balance between reasonable safeguards and open discourse becomes increasingly crucial. Too restrictive, and these systems become useless for discussing important but divisive topics. Too permissive, and they risk enabling harmful content.DeepSeek hasn’t publicly addressed the reasoning behind these increased restrictions and regression in free speech, but the AI community is already working on modifications. For now, chalk this up as another chapter in the ongoing tug-of-war between safety and openness in artificial intelligence.(Photo by John Cameron)Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.