Zoeken | CGShares

Vox een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-06-16 07:55:35 - Translate -

The stunning reversal of humanity’s oldest bias

Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:
#stunning #reversal #humanitys #oldest #bias

The stunning reversal of humanity’s oldest bias
Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More: #stunning #reversal #humanitys #oldest #bias

WWW.VOX.COM

The stunning reversal of humanity’s oldest bias
Perhaps the oldest, most pernicious form of human bias is that of men toward women. It often started at the moment of birth. In ancient Athens, at a public ceremony called the amphidromia, fathers would inspect a newborn and decide whether it would be part of the family, or be cast away. One often socially acceptable reason for abandoning the baby: It was a girl. Female infanticide has been distressingly common in many societies — and its practice is not just ancient history. In 1990, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen looked at birth ratios in Asia, North Africa, and China and calculated that more than 100 million women were essentially “missing” — meaning that, based on the normal ratio of boys to girls at birth and the longevity of both genders, there was a huge missing number of girls who should have been born, but weren’t. Sen’s estimate came before the truly widespread adoption of ultrasound tests that could determine the sex of a fetus in utero — which actually made the problem worse, leading to a wave of sex-selective abortions. These were especially common in countries like India and China; the latter’s one-child policy and old biases made families desperate for their one child to be a boy. The Economist has estimated that since 1980 alone, there have been approximately 50 million fewer girls born worldwide than would naturally be expected, which almost certainly means that roughly that nearly all of those girls were aborted for no other reason than their sex. The preference for boys was a bias that killed in mass numbers.But in one of the most important social shifts of our time, that bias is changing. In a great cover story earlier this month, The Economist reported that the number of annual excess male births has fallen from a peak of 1.7 million in 2000 to around 200,000, which puts it back within the biologically standard birth ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls. Countries that once had highly skewed sex ratios — like South Korea, which saw almost 116 boys born for every 100 girls in 1990 — now have normal or near-normal ratios. Altogether, The Economist estimated that the decline in sex preference at birth in the past 25 years has saved the equivalent of 7 million girls. That’s comparable to the number of lives saved by anti-smoking efforts in the US. So how, exactly, have we overcome a prejudice that seemed so embedded in human society?Success in school and the workplaceFor one, we have relaxed discrimination against girls and women in other ways — in school and in the workplace. With fewer limits, girls are outperforming boys in the classroom. In the most recent international PISA tests, considered the gold standard for evaluating student performance around the world, 15-year-old girls beat their male counterparts in reading in 79 out of 81 participating countries or economies, while the historic male advantage in math scores has fallen to single digits. Girls are also dominating in higher education, with 113 female students at that level for every 100 male students. While women continue to earn less than men, the gender pay gap has been shrinking, and in a number of urban areas in the US, young women have actually been outearning young men. Government policies have helped accelerate that shift, in part because they have come to recognize the serious social problems that eventually result from decades of anti-girl discrimination. In countries like South Korea and China, which have long had some of the most skewed gender ratios at birth, governments have cracked down on technologies that enable sex-selective abortion. In India, where female infanticide and neglect have been particularly horrific, slogans like “Save the Daughter, Educate the Daughter” have helped change opinions. A changing preferenceThe shift is being seen not just in birth sex ratios, but in opinion polls — and in the actions of would-be parents.Between 1983 and 2003, The Economist reported, the proportion of South Korean women who said it was “necessary” to have a son fell from 48 percent to 6 percent, while nearly half of women now say they want daughters. In Japan, the shift has gone even further — as far back as 2002, 75 percent of couples who wanted only one child said they hoped for a daughter.In the US, which allows sex selection for couples doing in-vitro fertilization, there is growing evidence that would-be parents prefer girls, as do potential adoptive parents. While in the past, parents who had a girl first were more likely to keep trying to have children in an effort to have a boy, the opposite is now true — couples who have a girl first are less likely to keep trying. A more equal futureThere’s still more progress to be made. In northwest of India, for instance, birth ratios that overly skew toward boys are still the norm. In regions of sub-Saharan Africa, birth sex ratios may be relatively normal, but post-birth discrimination in the form of poorer nutrition and worse medical care still lingers. And course, women around the world are still subject to unacceptable levels of violence and discrimination from men.And some of the reasons for this shift may not be as high-minded as we’d like to think. Boys around the world are struggling in the modern era. They increasingly underperform in education, are more likely to be involved in violent crime, and in general, are failing to launch into adulthood. In the US, 20 percent of American men between 25 and 34 still live with their parents, compared to 15 percent of similarly aged women. It also seems to be the case that at least some of the increasing preference for girls is rooted in sexist stereotypes. Parents around the world may now prefer girls partly because they see them as more likely to take care of them in their old age — meaning a different kind of bias against women, that they are more natural caretakers, may be paradoxically driving the decline in prejudice against girls at birth.But make no mistake — the decline of boy preference is a clear mark of social progress, one measured in millions of girls’ lives saved. And maybe one Father’s Day, not too long from now, we’ll reach the point where daughters and sons are simply children: equally loved and equally welcomed.A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!See More:

525

0 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Architizer een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-06-06 07:18:33 - Translate -

Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency

Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business.
In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum, we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Laband hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation.

Redefining Innovation
Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model.
Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space.
While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards.
Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now.

A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession
Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms.
One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has.
LessTalent
In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data.
We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide.
This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk.
Pay Gaps
In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries.
It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of K.
The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases.
A Smaller Piece of the Pie
Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years.
The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article.

In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data. To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy.
It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt.

The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here
The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model.
As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces.
Jobs will Disappear
Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation.
New Jobs will EmergeAI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs.
This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land.

The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit
VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer.
For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors.
Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment
The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway.
A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space.
Firm Acquisitions
AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors.
Startups
As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both.
Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces.

The Great Opportunity
Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies.
From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior.
This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world.
We think the future of the profession depends on it.
Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway
The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal.
#architects #your #real #competition #isnt

Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency
Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum, we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Laband hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation. Redefining Innovation Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model. Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space. While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards. Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now. A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms. One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has. LessTalent In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data. We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide. This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk. Pay Gaps In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries. It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of K. The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases. A Smaller Piece of the Pie Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years. The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article. In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data. To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy. It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt. The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model. As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces. Jobs will Disappear Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation. New Jobs will EmergeAI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs. This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land. The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer. For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway. A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space. Firm Acquisitions AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors. Startups As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both. Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces. The Great Opportunity Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies. From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior. This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world. We think the future of the profession depends on it. Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal. #architects #your #real #competition #isnt

ARCHITIZER.COM

Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency
Larry Fabbroni is an architect, strategic advisor, and Chief Innovation Officer for Practice of Architecture. Throughout his career, he has led efforts to reform studio culture and innovate practice. He earned his MBA from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. In 2017, as leaders in the AIA’s Young Architects Forum (YAF), we led the launch of the Practice Innovation Lab (PIL) and hosted a symposium that imagined new architectural practice models. At that time, we already felt that practice innovation was overdue in a profession that has not seen scaled disruption to its business model in over a century. Today, we are confident that there has never been a more critical time for the profession to embrace innovation. Redefining Innovation Henley Hall: Institute for Energy Efficiency by KieranTimberlake, Santa Barbara, California | KieranTimberlake’s research expertise creates value beyond a baseline labor model. Currently, artificial intelligence dominates strategy conversations, but just as we saw back in 2017, larger patterns prompt calls for innovation. Talent attraction is increasingly challenging, disruptive technology continues to emerge, and actors from outside our industry show growing interest in the space. While incremental innovation has long been a part of the profession, relatively few firms have adopted new practices that create value beyond a baseline labor model. Firms such as KieranTimberlake have shown that research expertise can do this. MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach. BIG has taken on the role of architect-as-developer. Snøhetta houses a product design division. We could continue to list great firms that have pushed the boundaries of practice, but they represent exceptions that have yet to be recognized as new standards. Indeed, the confluence of those factors that led to the original PIL continues to make the case that the time for scaled innovation is now. A Melting Iceberg: Incremental Changes Depleting the Profession Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway | Photo by Ivar Kvaal | Snøhetta houses a product design division, innovatively presenting a alternative business model for firms. One of the dangers of operating in a slow-moving industry is that change is difficult to detect and even more challenging to comprehend. If an iceberg loses 1% of mass per year, it’s tough to take notice, but the end result is catastrophic. This is what is happening to our profession. For newcomers, if it feels like there are increasingly more attractive opportunities elsewhere, that’s because there are. For seasoned professionals, if it feels like it’s become more challenging to maintain the same levels of prosperity, that’s because it has. Less(er) Talent In some ways, the shift towards companies recognizing “talent” as their most excellent resource has bewildered architects: we have always relied on talent. However, the patterns of talent leaving our profession are concerning. We say “feel” because there is no significant data. We spoke to Kendall A. Nicholson, Senior Director of Research at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), who confirmed that aggregated data on graduate placement does not exist. So we inquired about what placement looks like at several programs around the country. Omar Khan, Head of the Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture, informed us that approximately 90% of students pursue a minor to expand their horizons, and that in 2022, nearly one in three graduates entered the tech sector. Khan stated that these opportunities aren’t just student-driven — large innovative companies increasingly seek the value that graduates of architecture schools will provide. This increasing difficulty in capturing the talent that architecture schools are producing results in a shrinking and diluted talent pool. For a profession so reliant on human resources, this presents extreme risk. Pay Gaps In an increasingly expensive world, we are not able to compete for the best talent with emerging industries. It’s easy to understand why a popular career pivot for architects has become UX design. Designing user experience for websites pays significantly better than designing the same for the built environment. According to Glassdoor, 2023 entry-level UX designers earned an average of $78K, while the AIA salary calculator suggests architecture grads can expect to earn an average of $59 K. The talent we do attract into the profession often loses interest when they experience low pay and long hours, all while most firms lack clear paths and criteria for advancement or compensation increases. A Smaller Piece of the Pie Examining data in isolation, one might conclude that the profession continues to grow; the number of architects has increased substantially over the last century, and this trend has persisted in recent years. The problem with this growth is that the estimated share of the US GDP for Architectural Services has shrunk over time. This is not a manageable number to measure before 1999, when NCARB first aggregated local jurisdictional data. Due to limitations in industry economic data, we’re only showing data since 2011 for the purposes of this article. In that time, the number of architects has grown, the market size for services has grown, but the share those services represent as a portion of the US GDP has declined — by 15% if we use US Census data to almost 30% if we use industry research data (we used IbisWorld.com, however we found data that suggested a worse and others that offered a slightly better picture). To put it another way, architecture is a stagnant industry with a shrinking share of the economy. It’s challenging to examine this data and emerge feeling confident about the profession, but there is a silver lining. The biggest impediment to innovation for architects is not a lack of talent, but rather the business model. Design thinking has been widely adopted throughout the world as a key component of innovation processes; however, the problem is that we operate in the realm of professional services, which inherently is not well-suited to promoting innovation. Reliance on that formula is causing our iceberg to melt. The Tsunami: The AI Tidal Wave is Here The Rwanda Institute for Conservation Agriculture by MASS Design Group, Rwanda | MASS Design has pioneered a mission-driven approach that creates value beyond a baseline labor model. As we confront the exodus of talent, it is easy for both firm owners and clients to imagine AI bringing efficiencies and replacing “CAD-monkeys” with machines. However, any firm that wants to operate — and win — as anything more than a low-cost provider will need a strategy to increase value, not just cut costs. AI is merely part of the toolbox required to confront a perfect storm of forces. Jobs will Disappear Goldman Sachs predicts that as much as 37% of our industry tasks will be replaced by AI. Many see this as a pathway to lower costs and increased profits. However, that is short-sighted. Markets will adjust quickly and demand lower costs for services; additional new value will need to be articulated and proven, and this will only happen through innovation. New Jobs will Emerge (but fewer of them) AI prophets often emphasize that technological innovation has historically led to net employment gains. Previous World Economic Forum estimates predicted losses of up to 85 million existing jobs worldwide, with parallel gains of as many as 97 million new jobs. However, these estimates were revised in the WEF 2023 Economic Outlook, which now anticipates a net loss of 14 million jobs. This stark outlook signals an even greater need for architects to become more innovative. The 2024 RIBA AI Report indicates that 41% of architecture firms were already utilizing AI, though current tools are indeed just the beginning. Marketing, business development and content creation will be standard areas of AI deployment moving forward. Still, revolutionary changes will come in how we learn, not only to use new tools, but also to collaborate with digital agents. How will this happen? We can theorize, but it is not possible to know for sure until it arrives, so we need to have a plan before we can see the tidal wave from land. The Alien Invasion: Outsiders Are Entering Our Orbit VIA 57 West by BIG – Bjarke Ingels Group, New York City, New York | BIG has pioneered a new model for practice by taking on the role of architect-as-developer. For years, we’ve heard cries that “architects gave away the role of master builder.” But how much did architects actually give, and how much was taken by innovative competition? This distinction is critical because the wagons are circling, and the AEC space has become ever more attractive to investors. Venture Capital and Private Equity Investment The numbers are often difficult to parse because architecture can impact so many verticals and does not operate as its own sector in the investment realm; however, the trends suggest a groundswell is underway. A 2023 McKinsey report shows that construction tech deals nearly doubled from 2019 to 2022, growing by 85%. At the same period, the number of deals increased by 30%, indicating that interest continues to grow. An increasing size of deals also suggests a maturity of the market. As interest in infrastructure investments has declined from its high in 2020, and along with real estate, has been blunted by high interest rates, institutional investors continue to see opportunities in the AEC space. Firm Acquisitions AEC firms that deliver predictable returns have proven to be attractive targets for PE firms. In the second quarter of 2024, private equity firms accounted for over one-third of AEC firm mergers and acquisitions. For M&A deals, the industry has seen an increase in attractiveness with expanded infrastructure spending as a catalyst. However, this interest can also be tied to the lack of innovation that has resulted in an industry ripe for consolidation. M&A orchestrators generate large amounts of profit by streamlining operations, eliminating redundancies, and then stamping out competition. An entire community has been built around this, with AEC Advisors hosting an annual “Private Equity Summit” that brings together CEOs of AEC firms with PE investors. Startups As an extension of the growing interest from venture capital in the space, there is an upward trend in the AEC space being targeted for disruption by entrepreneurs who see an industry that represents a significant portion of the global GDP. AEC Works, a project of e-verse that catalogs AEC startups and investors, lists nearly 800 startups from around the world, with almost 200 identified as “architecture-focused.” The signal is clear: startups are looking to figure out how to do what you do cheaper, better, or perhaps both. Combining this environment with depleted talent pools, a declining share of GDP, and revolutionary technology, it is a correct response to be alarmed. Significant change is inevitable. It is time for architects to see the same opportunities that investors and entrepreneurs see, and learn to navigate within these spaces. The Great Opportunity Throughout history, new actors have enjoyed a “leap-frog” effect and been able to surpass established incumbents to reshape industries, markets and economies. From climate change to pandemic ripple effects, to the housing crisis, to generational shifts in the workforce, there are many forces that directly impact the work of architects and call for innovation. The need for new ways of designing and delivering different components of the built environment is ever-present and will be solved by teams that either include — and might be led by — architects, or those that do not. Most end users will only care if the resulting product is superior. This time of tension is indeed a time of great opportunity. Architects who embrace innovation in pursuing new iterations of our dated business models may actually achieve what many of us have dreamed of from the start: to leave a positive mark on the world. We think the future of the profession depends on it. Top image: Powerhouse Telemark by Snøhetta, Vestfold og Telemark, Norway The post Architects, Your Real Competition Isn’t AI — It’s Business Complacency appeared first on Journal.

415

0 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Vox een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-06-05 08:43:04 - Translate -

Big government is still good, even with Trump in power

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap whereare all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people. And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:
#big #government #still #good #even

Big government is still good, even with Trump in power
It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap whereare all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people. And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More: #big #government #still #good #even

WWW.VOX.COM

Big government is still good, even with Trump in power
It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

257

0 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!
9to5Mac een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-06-03 08:34:53 - Translate -

Apple TV+ is locking in the creator behind its most-watched new drama of the year

Following the breakout success of ‘Your Friends and Neighbors’, which stars Jon Hamm and wrapped its first season last week, Apple has extended its deal with showrunner Jonathan Tropper, Deadline reports.

Three-time Apple signee
Apple TV+ first partnered with Tropper back in 2019, when he served as executive producer and showrunner for See, one of the platform’s launch titles.
Since then he’s quietly become one of the most prolific creators on Apple TV+, with two active series and two high-profile films currently in the pipeline.
Under the terms of this latest multi-year extension, he’ll continue developing and producing original content for Apple through his production company, Tropper Ink. Here’s Tropper:

“Working with the entire team at Apple continues to be the single most creatively fulfilling collaboration of my career, and I’m looking forward to bringing Lucky and other new projects to the platform, while making more seasons of Your Friends & Neighbors”

Breakout success
According to Nielsen sampling data, Your Friends and Neighbors is the most-watched new Apple drama series of the year, based on first-month viewership across U.S. households.
It’s also on track to break into the Nielsen Streaming Top 10 for the first time, a rare feat for a newer Apple TV+ original. Notably, Apple had already seen the breakout coming: the show was renewed for a second season back in November, months before it even premiered. Season 2 is currently in production.
Up next
Coming up next from Tropper: Lucky, a limited series starring Anya Taylor-Joyand based on Marissa Stapley’s bestselling novel, is expected to debut later this year.
On the film side, Tropper is writing and producing The Corsair Code, a sci-fi mystery adventure starring Chris Hemsworth, and Matchbox, an action-comedy based on the iconic toy brand, featuring John Cena, Jessica Biel, and Sam Richardson.
Outside of Apple, Tropper is also writing an upcoming Star Wars film for director Shawn Levy.
Not bad.
Apple TV+ is available for per month and features hit TV shows and movies like Ted Lasso, Severance, The Studio, The Morning Show, Shrinking and Silo.

Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
#apple #locking #creator #behind #its

Apple TV+ is locking in the creator behind its most-watched new drama of the year
Following the breakout success of ‘Your Friends and Neighbors’, which stars Jon Hamm and wrapped its first season last week, Apple has extended its deal with showrunner Jonathan Tropper, Deadline reports. Three-time Apple signee Apple TV+ first partnered with Tropper back in 2019, when he served as executive producer and showrunner for See, one of the platform’s launch titles. Since then he’s quietly become one of the most prolific creators on Apple TV+, with two active series and two high-profile films currently in the pipeline. Under the terms of this latest multi-year extension, he’ll continue developing and producing original content for Apple through his production company, Tropper Ink. Here’s Tropper: “Working with the entire team at Apple continues to be the single most creatively fulfilling collaboration of my career, and I’m looking forward to bringing Lucky and other new projects to the platform, while making more seasons of Your Friends & Neighbors” Breakout success According to Nielsen sampling data, Your Friends and Neighbors is the most-watched new Apple drama series of the year, based on first-month viewership across U.S. households. It’s also on track to break into the Nielsen Streaming Top 10 for the first time, a rare feat for a newer Apple TV+ original. Notably, Apple had already seen the breakout coming: the show was renewed for a second season back in November, months before it even premiered. Season 2 is currently in production. Up next Coming up next from Tropper: Lucky, a limited series starring Anya Taylor-Joyand based on Marissa Stapley’s bestselling novel, is expected to debut later this year. On the film side, Tropper is writing and producing The Corsair Code, a sci-fi mystery adventure starring Chris Hemsworth, and Matchbox, an action-comedy based on the iconic toy brand, featuring John Cena, Jessica Biel, and Sam Richardson. Outside of Apple, Tropper is also writing an upcoming Star Wars film for director Shawn Levy. Not bad. Apple TV+ is available for per month and features hit TV shows and movies like Ted Lasso, Severance, The Studio, The Morning Show, Shrinking and Silo. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel #apple #locking #creator #behind #its

9TO5MAC.COM

Apple TV+ is locking in the creator behind its most-watched new drama of the year
Following the breakout success of ‘Your Friends and Neighbors’, which stars Jon Hamm and wrapped its first season last week, Apple has extended its deal with showrunner Jonathan Tropper, Deadline reports. Three-time Apple signee Apple TV+ first partnered with Tropper back in 2019, when he served as executive producer and showrunner for See, one of the platform’s launch titles. Since then he’s quietly become one of the most prolific creators on Apple TV+, with two active series and two high-profile films currently in the pipeline. Under the terms of this latest multi-year extension, he’ll continue developing and producing original content for Apple through his production company, Tropper Ink. Here’s Tropper: “Working with the entire team at Apple continues to be the single most creatively fulfilling collaboration of my career, and I’m looking forward to bringing Lucky and other new projects to the platform, while making more seasons of Your Friends & Neighbors” Breakout success According to Nielsen sampling data, Your Friends and Neighbors is the most-watched new Apple drama series of the year, based on first-month viewership across U.S. households. It’s also on track to break into the Nielsen Streaming Top 10 for the first time, a rare feat for a newer Apple TV+ original. Notably, Apple had already seen the breakout coming: the show was renewed for a second season back in November, months before it even premiered. Season 2 is currently in production. Up next Coming up next from Tropper: Lucky, a limited series starring Anya Taylor-Joy (The Gorge, Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga) and based on Marissa Stapley’s bestselling novel, is expected to debut later this year. On the film side, Tropper is writing and producing The Corsair Code, a sci-fi mystery adventure starring Chris Hemsworth (Thor: Ragnarok), and Matchbox, an action-comedy based on the iconic toy brand, featuring John Cena (Peacemaker), Jessica Biel (The Illusionist), and Sam Richardson (Veep). Outside of Apple, Tropper is also writing an upcoming Star Wars film for director Shawn Levy. Not bad. Apple TV+ is available for $9.99 per month and features hit TV shows and movies like Ted Lasso, Severance, The Studio, The Morning Show, Shrinking and Silo. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed. FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

0 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Fox News een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-05-31 12:41:17 - Translate -

Fox News AI Newsletter: Scammers can exploit your data from just 1 ChatGPT search

A person using ChatGPT on their phoneWelcome to Fox News’ Artificial Intelligence newsletter with the latest AI technology advancements.IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER:- Scammers can exploit your data from just one ChatGPT search- Business Insider embraces AI while laying off 21% of workforce- Nvidia, Dell partner with Trump admin to make next-gen supercomputerGUARD YOUR DATA: ChatGPT and other large language modelshave become amazing helpers for everyday tasks. Whether it's summarizing complex ideas, designing a birthday card or even planning your apartment's layout, you can get impressive results with just a simple prompt.NEWS BREAK: Business Insider announced Thursday that the company will be shrinking the size of its newsroom and making layoffs, impacting over a fifth of its staff. Business Insider CEO Barbara Peng said in an internal memo obtained by Fox News Digital that the company is "fully embracing AI," as 70% of the company’s staff currently uses Enterprise ChatGPT, with a goal of 100%. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and progressives are taking issue with what they see as Nvidia's outsized influence in the AI chip market.HIGH TECH: Nvidia and Dell on Thursday announced a breakthrough supercomputer powered by artificial intelligencewill launch next year to help drive research at the Department of Energy.SETTING THE PACE: Pace University uses AI and scannable QR codes to read graduates' names. Passengers arrive to Terminal B at Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey on May 7, 2025.A-'EYE' IN THE SKY: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently announced that artificial intelligenceis being used to detect and address air traffic risks, following a slew of near-misses and fatal plane crashes across the country.'PROFOUND TRANSFORMATION': Nvidia, a leader in the artificial intelligencespace, saw shares rise 3% in after-hours trading following the announcement. The earnings report showed that first-quarter net income was up 26% from a year ago at nearly billion, with revenue rising to billion, up 69% from last year. Apple logo'AGRI-FICIAL' INTELLIGENCE: John Deere is turning to artificial intelligence to help farmers address labor shortages and enable them to handle other tasks associated with their business.APPLE’S AI RECKONING': OpenAI has just made a move that's turning heads across the tech world. The company is acquiring io, the AI device startup founded by Jony Ive, for nearly billion. This isn't your typical business deal. It's a collaboration between Sam Altman, who leads OpenAI, and the designer responsible for some of Apple's most iconic products, including the iPhone and Apple Watch.STANDING TALL AGAIN: For Caroline Laubach, being a Wandercraft test pilot is about more than just trying out new technology. It's about reclaiming a sense of freedom and connection that many wheelchair users miss. Laubach, a spinal stroke survivor and full-time wheelchair user, has played a key role in demonstrating the personal AI-powered prototype exoskeleton's development, and her experience highlights just how life-changing this device can be. A man using an exoskeleton to walk.BOT BLUNDER: Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot is being slammed for "anti-American" claims about the supposed White supremacist origins of Memorial Day.FOLLOW FOX NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIASIGN UP FOR OUR OTHER NEWSLETTERSDOWNLOAD OUR APPSWATCH FOX NEWS ONLINEFox News GoSTREAM FOX NATIONFox NationStay up to date on the latest AI technology advancements and learn about the challenges and opportunities AI presents now and for the future with Fox News here. This article was written by Fox News staff.
#fox #news #newsletter #scammers #can

Fox News AI Newsletter: Scammers can exploit your data from just 1 ChatGPT search
A person using ChatGPT on their phoneWelcome to Fox News’ Artificial Intelligence newsletter with the latest AI technology advancements.IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER:- Scammers can exploit your data from just one ChatGPT search- Business Insider embraces AI while laying off 21% of workforce- Nvidia, Dell partner with Trump admin to make next-gen supercomputerGUARD YOUR DATA: ChatGPT and other large language modelshave become amazing helpers for everyday tasks. Whether it's summarizing complex ideas, designing a birthday card or even planning your apartment's layout, you can get impressive results with just a simple prompt.NEWS BREAK: Business Insider announced Thursday that the company will be shrinking the size of its newsroom and making layoffs, impacting over a fifth of its staff. Business Insider CEO Barbara Peng said in an internal memo obtained by Fox News Digital that the company is "fully embracing AI," as 70% of the company’s staff currently uses Enterprise ChatGPT, with a goal of 100%. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and progressives are taking issue with what they see as Nvidia's outsized influence in the AI chip market.HIGH TECH: Nvidia and Dell on Thursday announced a breakthrough supercomputer powered by artificial intelligencewill launch next year to help drive research at the Department of Energy.SETTING THE PACE: Pace University uses AI and scannable QR codes to read graduates' names. Passengers arrive to Terminal B at Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey on May 7, 2025.A-'EYE' IN THE SKY: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently announced that artificial intelligenceis being used to detect and address air traffic risks, following a slew of near-misses and fatal plane crashes across the country.'PROFOUND TRANSFORMATION': Nvidia, a leader in the artificial intelligencespace, saw shares rise 3% in after-hours trading following the announcement. The earnings report showed that first-quarter net income was up 26% from a year ago at nearly billion, with revenue rising to billion, up 69% from last year. Apple logo'AGRI-FICIAL' INTELLIGENCE: John Deere is turning to artificial intelligence to help farmers address labor shortages and enable them to handle other tasks associated with their business.APPLE’S AI RECKONING': OpenAI has just made a move that's turning heads across the tech world. The company is acquiring io, the AI device startup founded by Jony Ive, for nearly billion. This isn't your typical business deal. It's a collaboration between Sam Altman, who leads OpenAI, and the designer responsible for some of Apple's most iconic products, including the iPhone and Apple Watch.STANDING TALL AGAIN: For Caroline Laubach, being a Wandercraft test pilot is about more than just trying out new technology. It's about reclaiming a sense of freedom and connection that many wheelchair users miss. Laubach, a spinal stroke survivor and full-time wheelchair user, has played a key role in demonstrating the personal AI-powered prototype exoskeleton's development, and her experience highlights just how life-changing this device can be. A man using an exoskeleton to walk.BOT BLUNDER: Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot is being slammed for "anti-American" claims about the supposed White supremacist origins of Memorial Day.FOLLOW FOX NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIASIGN UP FOR OUR OTHER NEWSLETTERSDOWNLOAD OUR APPSWATCH FOX NEWS ONLINEFox News GoSTREAM FOX NATIONFox NationStay up to date on the latest AI technology advancements and learn about the challenges and opportunities AI presents now and for the future with Fox News here. This article was written by Fox News staff. #fox #news #newsletter #scammers #can

WWW.FOXNEWS.COM

Fox News AI Newsletter: Scammers can exploit your data from just 1 ChatGPT search
A person using ChatGPT on their phone (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson) Welcome to Fox News’ Artificial Intelligence newsletter with the latest AI technology advancements.IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER:- Scammers can exploit your data from just one ChatGPT search- Business Insider embraces AI while laying off 21% of workforce- Nvidia, Dell partner with Trump admin to make next-gen supercomputerGUARD YOUR DATA: ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) have become amazing helpers for everyday tasks. Whether it's summarizing complex ideas, designing a birthday card or even planning your apartment's layout, you can get impressive results with just a simple prompt.NEWS BREAK: Business Insider announced Thursday that the company will be shrinking the size of its newsroom and making layoffs, impacting over a fifth of its staff. Business Insider CEO Barbara Peng said in an internal memo obtained by Fox News Digital that the company is "fully embracing AI," as 70% of the company’s staff currently uses Enterprise ChatGPT, with a goal of 100%. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and progressives are taking issue with what they see as Nvidia's outsized influence in the AI chip market. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)HIGH TECH: Nvidia and Dell on Thursday announced a breakthrough supercomputer powered by artificial intelligence (AI) will launch next year to help drive research at the Department of Energy (DOE).SETTING THE PACE: Pace University uses AI and scannable QR codes to read graduates' names. Passengers arrive to Terminal B at Newark Liberty International Airport in Newark, New Jersey on May 7, 2025. (KENA BETANCUR/AFP via Getty Images)A-'EYE' IN THE SKY: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently announced that artificial intelligence (AI) is being used to detect and address air traffic risks, following a slew of near-misses and fatal plane crashes across the country.'PROFOUND TRANSFORMATION': Nvidia, a leader in the artificial intelligence (AI) space, saw shares rise 3% in after-hours trading following the announcement. The earnings report showed that first-quarter net income was up 26% from a year ago at nearly $19 billion, with revenue rising to $44 billion, up 69% from last year. Apple logo (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)'AGRI-FICIAL' INTELLIGENCE: John Deere is turning to artificial intelligence to help farmers address labor shortages and enable them to handle other tasks associated with their business.APPLE’S AI RECKONING': OpenAI has just made a move that's turning heads across the tech world. The company is acquiring io, the AI device startup founded by Jony Ive, for nearly $6.5 billion. This isn't your typical business deal. It's a collaboration between Sam Altman, who leads OpenAI, and the designer responsible for some of Apple's most iconic products, including the iPhone and Apple Watch.STANDING TALL AGAIN: For Caroline Laubach, being a Wandercraft test pilot is about more than just trying out new technology. It's about reclaiming a sense of freedom and connection that many wheelchair users miss. Laubach, a spinal stroke survivor and full-time wheelchair user, has played a key role in demonstrating the personal AI-powered prototype exoskeleton's development, and her experience highlights just how life-changing this device can be. A man using an exoskeleton to walk. (Wandercraft)BOT BLUNDER: Google’s artificial intelligence chatbot is being slammed for "anti-American" claims about the supposed White supremacist origins of Memorial Day.FOLLOW FOX NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIASIGN UP FOR OUR OTHER NEWSLETTERSDOWNLOAD OUR APPSWATCH FOX NEWS ONLINEFox News GoSTREAM FOX NATIONFox NationStay up to date on the latest AI technology advancements and learn about the challenges and opportunities AI presents now and for the future with Fox News here. This article was written by Fox News staff.

4 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Computer Weekly een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-05-31 10:25:16 - Translate -

What VMware’s licensing crackdown reveals about control and risk

Over the past few weeks, VMware customers holding onto their perpetual licenses, which are often unsupported and in limbo, have reportedly begun receiving formal cease-and-desist letters from Broadcom. The message is as blunt as it is unsettling: your support contract has expired, and you are to immediately uninstall any updates, patches, or enhancements released since that expiration date. Not only that, but audits could follow, with the possibility of “enhanced damages” for breach of contract.
This is a sharp escalation in an effort to push perpetual license holders toward VMware’s new subscription-only model. For many, it signals the end of an era where critical infrastructure software could be owned, maintained, and supported on long-term, stable terms.
Now, even those who bought VMware licenses outright are being told that support access is off the table unless they sign on to the new subscription regime. As a result, enterprises are being forced to make tough decisions about how they manage and support one of the most foundational layers of their IT environments.

VMware isn’t just another piece of enterprise software. It’s the plumbing. The foundation. The layer everything else runs on top of, which is precisely why many CIOs flinch at the idea of running unsupported. The potential risk is too great. A vulnerability or failure in your virtual infrastructure isn’t the same as a bug in a CRM. It’s a systemic weakness. It touches everything.
This technical risk is, without question, the biggest barrier to any organization considering support options outside of VMware’s official offering. And it’s a valid concern. But technical risk isn’t black and white. It varies widely depending on version, deployment model, network architecture, and operational maturity. A tightly managed and stable VMware environment running a mature release with minimal exposure doesn’t carry the same risk profile as an open, multi-tenant deployment on a newer build.

The prevailing assumption is that support equals security—and that operating unsupported equals exposure. But this relationship is more complex than it appears. In most enterprise environments, security is not determined by whether a patch is available. It’s determined by how well the environment is configured, managed, and monitored.
Patches are not applied instantly. Risk assessments, integration testing, and change control processes introduce natural delays. And in many cases, security gaps arise not from missing patches but from misconfigurations: exposed management interfaces, weak credentials, overly permissive access. An unpatched environment, properly maintained and reviewed, can be significantly more secure than a patched one with poor hygiene. Support models that focus on proactive security—through vulnerability analysis, environment-specific impact assessments, and mitigation strategies—offer a different but equally valid form of protection. They don’t rely on patch delivery alone. They consider how a vulnerability behaves in the attack chain, whether it’s exploitable, and what compensating controls are available.

about VMware security

Hacking contest exposes VMware security: In what has been described as a historical first, hackers in Berlin have been able to demo successful attacks on the ESXi hypervisor.
No workaround leads to more pain for VMware users: There are patches for the latest batch of security alerts from Broadcom, but VMware users on perpetual licences may not have access.

This kind of tailored risk management is especially important now, as vendor support for older VMware versions diminishes. Many reported vulnerabilities relate to newer product components or bundled services, not the core virtualization stack. The perception of rising security risk needs to be balanced against the stability and maturity of the versions in question. In other words, not all unsupported deployments are created equal.

Some VMware environments—particularly older versions like vSphere 5.x or 6.x—are already beyond the range of vendor patching. In these cases, the transition to unsupported status may be more symbolic than substantive. The risk profile has not meaningfully changed. Others, particularly organisations operating vSphere 7 or 8 without an active support contract, face a more complex challenge. Some critical security patches remain accessible, depending on severity and version, but the margin of certainty is shrinking.
These are the cases where enterprises are increasingly turning to alternative support models to bridge the gap—ensuring continuity, maintaining compliance, and retaining access to skilled technical expertise.

Third-party support is sometimes seen as a temporary fix—a way to buy time while organizations figure out their long-term plans. And it can serve that purpose well. But increasingly, it’s also being recognized as a strategic choice in its own right: a long-term solution for enterprises that want to maintain operational stability with a reliable support partner while retaining control over their virtualization roadmap.What distinguishes third-party support in this context isn’t just cost control, it’s methodology.
Risk is assessed holistically, identifying which vulnerabilities truly matter, what can be addressed through configuration, and when escalation is genuinely required. This approach recognises that most enterprises aren’t chasing bleeding-edge features. They want to run stable, well-understood environments that don’t change unpredictably. Third-party support helps them do exactly that, without being forced into a rapid, costly migration or a subscription contract that may not align with their business needs.
Crucially, it enables organisations to move on their own timeline.
Much of the conversation around unsupported VMware environments focuses on technical risk. But the longer-term threat may be strategic. The end of perpetual licensing, the sharp rise in subscription pricing, and now the legal enforcement of support boundaries all points to a much bigger problem: a loss of control over infrastructure strategy.
Vendor-imposed timelines, licensing models, and audit policies are increasingly dictating how organizations use the very software they once owned outright. Third-party support doesn’t eliminate risk—nothing can. But it redistributes and controls it. It gives enterprises more agency over when and how they migrate, how they manage updates, and where they invest. In a landscape shaped by vendor agendas, that independence is increasingly critical.
Broadcom’s cease-and-desist letters represent a new phase in the relationship between software vendors and customers—one defined not by collaboration, but by contractual enforcement. And for VMware customers still clinging to the idea of “owning” their infrastructure, it’s a rude awakening: support is no longer optional, and perpetual is no longer forever. Organizations now face three paths: accept the subscription model, attempt a rapid migration to an alternative platform, or find a support model that gives them the stability to decide their future on their own terms.
For many, the third option is the only one that balances operational security with strategic flexibility.
The question now isn’t whether unsupported infrastructure is risky. The question is whether the greater risk is allowing someone else to dictate what happens next.
#what #vmwares #licensing #crackdown #reveals

What VMware’s licensing crackdown reveals about control and risk
Over the past few weeks, VMware customers holding onto their perpetual licenses, which are often unsupported and in limbo, have reportedly begun receiving formal cease-and-desist letters from Broadcom. The message is as blunt as it is unsettling: your support contract has expired, and you are to immediately uninstall any updates, patches, or enhancements released since that expiration date. Not only that, but audits could follow, with the possibility of “enhanced damages” for breach of contract. This is a sharp escalation in an effort to push perpetual license holders toward VMware’s new subscription-only model. For many, it signals the end of an era where critical infrastructure software could be owned, maintained, and supported on long-term, stable terms. Now, even those who bought VMware licenses outright are being told that support access is off the table unless they sign on to the new subscription regime. As a result, enterprises are being forced to make tough decisions about how they manage and support one of the most foundational layers of their IT environments. VMware isn’t just another piece of enterprise software. It’s the plumbing. The foundation. The layer everything else runs on top of, which is precisely why many CIOs flinch at the idea of running unsupported. The potential risk is too great. A vulnerability or failure in your virtual infrastructure isn’t the same as a bug in a CRM. It’s a systemic weakness. It touches everything. This technical risk is, without question, the biggest barrier to any organization considering support options outside of VMware’s official offering. And it’s a valid concern. But technical risk isn’t black and white. It varies widely depending on version, deployment model, network architecture, and operational maturity. A tightly managed and stable VMware environment running a mature release with minimal exposure doesn’t carry the same risk profile as an open, multi-tenant deployment on a newer build. The prevailing assumption is that support equals security—and that operating unsupported equals exposure. But this relationship is more complex than it appears. In most enterprise environments, security is not determined by whether a patch is available. It’s determined by how well the environment is configured, managed, and monitored. Patches are not applied instantly. Risk assessments, integration testing, and change control processes introduce natural delays. And in many cases, security gaps arise not from missing patches but from misconfigurations: exposed management interfaces, weak credentials, overly permissive access. An unpatched environment, properly maintained and reviewed, can be significantly more secure than a patched one with poor hygiene. Support models that focus on proactive security—through vulnerability analysis, environment-specific impact assessments, and mitigation strategies—offer a different but equally valid form of protection. They don’t rely on patch delivery alone. They consider how a vulnerability behaves in the attack chain, whether it’s exploitable, and what compensating controls are available. about VMware security Hacking contest exposes VMware security: In what has been described as a historical first, hackers in Berlin have been able to demo successful attacks on the ESXi hypervisor. No workaround leads to more pain for VMware users: There are patches for the latest batch of security alerts from Broadcom, but VMware users on perpetual licences may not have access. This kind of tailored risk management is especially important now, as vendor support for older VMware versions diminishes. Many reported vulnerabilities relate to newer product components or bundled services, not the core virtualization stack. The perception of rising security risk needs to be balanced against the stability and maturity of the versions in question. In other words, not all unsupported deployments are created equal. Some VMware environments—particularly older versions like vSphere 5.x or 6.x—are already beyond the range of vendor patching. In these cases, the transition to unsupported status may be more symbolic than substantive. The risk profile has not meaningfully changed. Others, particularly organisations operating vSphere 7 or 8 without an active support contract, face a more complex challenge. Some critical security patches remain accessible, depending on severity and version, but the margin of certainty is shrinking. These are the cases where enterprises are increasingly turning to alternative support models to bridge the gap—ensuring continuity, maintaining compliance, and retaining access to skilled technical expertise. Third-party support is sometimes seen as a temporary fix—a way to buy time while organizations figure out their long-term plans. And it can serve that purpose well. But increasingly, it’s also being recognized as a strategic choice in its own right: a long-term solution for enterprises that want to maintain operational stability with a reliable support partner while retaining control over their virtualization roadmap.What distinguishes third-party support in this context isn’t just cost control, it’s methodology. Risk is assessed holistically, identifying which vulnerabilities truly matter, what can be addressed through configuration, and when escalation is genuinely required. This approach recognises that most enterprises aren’t chasing bleeding-edge features. They want to run stable, well-understood environments that don’t change unpredictably. Third-party support helps them do exactly that, without being forced into a rapid, costly migration or a subscription contract that may not align with their business needs. Crucially, it enables organisations to move on their own timeline. Much of the conversation around unsupported VMware environments focuses on technical risk. But the longer-term threat may be strategic. The end of perpetual licensing, the sharp rise in subscription pricing, and now the legal enforcement of support boundaries all points to a much bigger problem: a loss of control over infrastructure strategy. Vendor-imposed timelines, licensing models, and audit policies are increasingly dictating how organizations use the very software they once owned outright. Third-party support doesn’t eliminate risk—nothing can. But it redistributes and controls it. It gives enterprises more agency over when and how they migrate, how they manage updates, and where they invest. In a landscape shaped by vendor agendas, that independence is increasingly critical. Broadcom’s cease-and-desist letters represent a new phase in the relationship between software vendors and customers—one defined not by collaboration, but by contractual enforcement. And for VMware customers still clinging to the idea of “owning” their infrastructure, it’s a rude awakening: support is no longer optional, and perpetual is no longer forever. Organizations now face three paths: accept the subscription model, attempt a rapid migration to an alternative platform, or find a support model that gives them the stability to decide their future on their own terms. For many, the third option is the only one that balances operational security with strategic flexibility. The question now isn’t whether unsupported infrastructure is risky. The question is whether the greater risk is allowing someone else to dictate what happens next. #what #vmwares #licensing #crackdown #reveals

WWW.COMPUTERWEEKLY.COM

What VMware’s licensing crackdown reveals about control and risk
Over the past few weeks, VMware customers holding onto their perpetual licenses, which are often unsupported and in limbo, have reportedly begun receiving formal cease-and-desist letters from Broadcom. The message is as blunt as it is unsettling: your support contract has expired, and you are to immediately uninstall any updates, patches, or enhancements released since that expiration date. Not only that, but audits could follow, with the possibility of “enhanced damages” for breach of contract. This is a sharp escalation in an effort to push perpetual license holders toward VMware’s new subscription-only model. For many, it signals the end of an era where critical infrastructure software could be owned, maintained, and supported on long-term, stable terms. Now, even those who bought VMware licenses outright are being told that support access is off the table unless they sign on to the new subscription regime. As a result, enterprises are being forced to make tough decisions about how they manage and support one of the most foundational layers of their IT environments. VMware isn’t just another piece of enterprise software. It’s the plumbing. The foundation. The layer everything else runs on top of, which is precisely why many CIOs flinch at the idea of running unsupported. The potential risk is too great. A vulnerability or failure in your virtual infrastructure isn’t the same as a bug in a CRM. It’s a systemic weakness. It touches everything. This technical risk is, without question, the biggest barrier to any organization considering support options outside of VMware’s official offering. And it’s a valid concern. But technical risk isn’t black and white. It varies widely depending on version, deployment model, network architecture, and operational maturity. A tightly managed and stable VMware environment running a mature release with minimal exposure doesn’t carry the same risk profile as an open, multi-tenant deployment on a newer build. The prevailing assumption is that support equals security—and that operating unsupported equals exposure. But this relationship is more complex than it appears. In most enterprise environments, security is not determined by whether a patch is available. It’s determined by how well the environment is configured, managed, and monitored. Patches are not applied instantly. Risk assessments, integration testing, and change control processes introduce natural delays. And in many cases, security gaps arise not from missing patches but from misconfigurations: exposed management interfaces, weak credentials, overly permissive access. An unpatched environment, properly maintained and reviewed, can be significantly more secure than a patched one with poor hygiene. Support models that focus on proactive security—through vulnerability analysis, environment-specific impact assessments, and mitigation strategies—offer a different but equally valid form of protection. They don’t rely on patch delivery alone. They consider how a vulnerability behaves in the attack chain, whether it’s exploitable, and what compensating controls are available. Read more about VMware security Hacking contest exposes VMware security: In what has been described as a historical first, hackers in Berlin have been able to demo successful attacks on the ESXi hypervisor. No workaround leads to more pain for VMware users: There are patches for the latest batch of security alerts from Broadcom, but VMware users on perpetual licences may not have access. This kind of tailored risk management is especially important now, as vendor support for older VMware versions diminishes. Many reported vulnerabilities relate to newer product components or bundled services, not the core virtualization stack. The perception of rising security risk needs to be balanced against the stability and maturity of the versions in question. In other words, not all unsupported deployments are created equal. Some VMware environments—particularly older versions like vSphere 5.x or 6.x—are already beyond the range of vendor patching. In these cases, the transition to unsupported status may be more symbolic than substantive. The risk profile has not meaningfully changed. Others, particularly organisations operating vSphere 7 or 8 without an active support contract, face a more complex challenge. Some critical security patches remain accessible, depending on severity and version, but the margin of certainty is shrinking. These are the cases where enterprises are increasingly turning to alternative support models to bridge the gap—ensuring continuity, maintaining compliance, and retaining access to skilled technical expertise. Third-party support is sometimes seen as a temporary fix—a way to buy time while organizations figure out their long-term plans. And it can serve that purpose well. But increasingly, it’s also being recognized as a strategic choice in its own right: a long-term solution for enterprises that want to maintain operational stability with a reliable support partner while retaining control over their virtualization roadmap.What distinguishes third-party support in this context isn’t just cost control, it’s methodology. Risk is assessed holistically, identifying which vulnerabilities truly matter, what can be addressed through configuration, and when escalation is genuinely required. This approach recognises that most enterprises aren’t chasing bleeding-edge features. They want to run stable, well-understood environments that don’t change unpredictably. Third-party support helps them do exactly that, without being forced into a rapid, costly migration or a subscription contract that may not align with their business needs. Crucially, it enables organisations to move on their own timeline. Much of the conversation around unsupported VMware environments focuses on technical risk. But the longer-term threat may be strategic. The end of perpetual licensing, the sharp rise in subscription pricing, and now the legal enforcement of support boundaries all points to a much bigger problem: a loss of control over infrastructure strategy. Vendor-imposed timelines, licensing models, and audit policies are increasingly dictating how organizations use the very software they once owned outright. Third-party support doesn’t eliminate risk—nothing can. But it redistributes and controls it. It gives enterprises more agency over when and how they migrate, how they manage updates, and where they invest. In a landscape shaped by vendor agendas, that independence is increasingly critical. Broadcom’s cease-and-desist letters represent a new phase in the relationship between software vendors and customers—one defined not by collaboration, but by contractual enforcement. And for VMware customers still clinging to the idea of “owning” their infrastructure, it’s a rude awakening: support is no longer optional, and perpetual is no longer forever. Organizations now face three paths: accept the subscription model, attempt a rapid migration to an alternative platform, or find a support model that gives them the stability to decide their future on their own terms. For many, the third option is the only one that balances operational security with strategic flexibility. The question now isn’t whether unsupported infrastructure is risky. The question is whether the greater risk is allowing someone else to dictate what happens next.

0 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!
Game Developer een koppeling hebt gedeeld
2025-05-31 09:40:17 - Translate -

ZeniMax QA union signs tentative bargaining agreement with Microsoft

Bryant Francis, Senior EditorMay 30, 20253 Min ReadImage via ZeniMax Workers United-CEWA.At a GlanceZeniMax Workers Untied-CWA has signed a tentative contract agreement with Microsoft after two years of negotiating.Unionized QA workers at ZeniMax celebrated a huge win today with the news that their union, ZeniMax Workers United-CWA, and ZeniMax parent company Microsoft finally reached a tentative contract agreement two years after unionizing in 2023.The new contract includes "substantial" across-the-board wage increases and new minimum salaries for employees and policies for introducing AI tools in the workplace.It also includes protections against arbitrary dismissal, grievance procedures, and a robust crediting policy to ensure QA workers are recognized for their work on ZeniMax games. The CWA declared that the agreement "sets new standards" for the video game industry."Video games have been the revenue titan of the entire entertainment industry for years, and the workers who develop these games are too often exploited for their passion and creativity," said ZeniMax QA tester Jessee Leese, who is a member of the bargaining committee. "Our first contract is an invitation for video game professionals everywhere to take action."The agreement follows a brief public spat between the two parties from November 2024 through April 2025. The union has spoken out against Microsoft's decision to outsource more work to outside contractors and accused it of "hindering" contract negotiations, briefly going on strike last year and voting to authorize a second strike this spring. Microsoft denied the accusation, saying made "fair" proposals to the bargaining committee.Related:That the two groups could go from public verbal sparring to a successful bargaining agreement in under two months shows that some form of progress came after workers threatened that second strike.Unions possess negotiation tools that individuals don'tAdapting the union's contract and tactics is a potentially powerful way to In 2024 ZeniMax union leaders Autumn Mitchell and Chris Lusco broke down the benefits of the unionization process in a conversation on the Game Developer Podcast, explaining that choosing to unionize has created new bargaining opportunities that individual employees don't possess.For instance, the pair discussed the concept of "recall rights," a term the included in the bargaining agreement that requires employers to offer laid-off employees a chance to return to the company if they reopen their positions within 2-3 years after being laid off. Unionizing workers in the United States also benefit what's known as a "status quo" condition for workers' contracts that are immediately imposed when a union is declared, preventing their employer from suddenly shrinking benefits.Related:"We're talking about eliminating that 'revolving door' at least to some degree," Mitchell said at the time, in reference to how high turnover can gut a studio's institutional knowledge.Their tactics will certainly be useful to other unions negotiating bargaining agreements with Microsoft. At neighboring subsidiary Activision Blizzard, the developers working on the Warcraft and Overwatch series are waging their ownbattle with the company, as are the employees at Raven Software and workers across Activision Blizzard's QA teams. about:Top StoriesUnionizationXboxAbout the AuthorBryant FrancisSenior Editor, GameDeveloper.comBryant Francis is a writer, journalist, and narrative designer based in Boston, MA. He currently writes for Game Developer, a leading B2B publication for the video game industry. His credits include Proxy Studios' upcoming 4X strategy game Zephon and Amplitude Studio's 2017 game Endless Space 2.Follow Bryant Francis, Senior Editor, on Bluesky or LinkedIn.See more from Bryant FrancisDaily news, dev blogs, and stories from Game Developer straight to your inboxStay UpdatedYou May Also Like
#zenimax #union #signs #tentative #bargaining

ZeniMax QA union signs tentative bargaining agreement with Microsoft
Bryant Francis, Senior EditorMay 30, 20253 Min ReadImage via ZeniMax Workers United-CEWA.At a GlanceZeniMax Workers Untied-CWA has signed a tentative contract agreement with Microsoft after two years of negotiating.Unionized QA workers at ZeniMax celebrated a huge win today with the news that their union, ZeniMax Workers United-CWA, and ZeniMax parent company Microsoft finally reached a tentative contract agreement two years after unionizing in 2023.The new contract includes "substantial" across-the-board wage increases and new minimum salaries for employees and policies for introducing AI tools in the workplace.It also includes protections against arbitrary dismissal, grievance procedures, and a robust crediting policy to ensure QA workers are recognized for their work on ZeniMax games. The CWA declared that the agreement "sets new standards" for the video game industry."Video games have been the revenue titan of the entire entertainment industry for years, and the workers who develop these games are too often exploited for their passion and creativity," said ZeniMax QA tester Jessee Leese, who is a member of the bargaining committee. "Our first contract is an invitation for video game professionals everywhere to take action."The agreement follows a brief public spat between the two parties from November 2024 through April 2025. The union has spoken out against Microsoft's decision to outsource more work to outside contractors and accused it of "hindering" contract negotiations, briefly going on strike last year and voting to authorize a second strike this spring. Microsoft denied the accusation, saying made "fair" proposals to the bargaining committee.Related:That the two groups could go from public verbal sparring to a successful bargaining agreement in under two months shows that some form of progress came after workers threatened that second strike.Unions possess negotiation tools that individuals don'tAdapting the union's contract and tactics is a potentially powerful way to In 2024 ZeniMax union leaders Autumn Mitchell and Chris Lusco broke down the benefits of the unionization process in a conversation on the Game Developer Podcast, explaining that choosing to unionize has created new bargaining opportunities that individual employees don't possess.For instance, the pair discussed the concept of "recall rights," a term the included in the bargaining agreement that requires employers to offer laid-off employees a chance to return to the company if they reopen their positions within 2-3 years after being laid off. Unionizing workers in the United States also benefit what's known as a "status quo" condition for workers' contracts that are immediately imposed when a union is declared, preventing their employer from suddenly shrinking benefits.Related:"We're talking about eliminating that 'revolving door' at least to some degree," Mitchell said at the time, in reference to how high turnover can gut a studio's institutional knowledge.Their tactics will certainly be useful to other unions negotiating bargaining agreements with Microsoft. At neighboring subsidiary Activision Blizzard, the developers working on the Warcraft and Overwatch series are waging their ownbattle with the company, as are the employees at Raven Software and workers across Activision Blizzard's QA teams. about:Top StoriesUnionizationXboxAbout the AuthorBryant FrancisSenior Editor, GameDeveloper.comBryant Francis is a writer, journalist, and narrative designer based in Boston, MA. He currently writes for Game Developer, a leading B2B publication for the video game industry. His credits include Proxy Studios' upcoming 4X strategy game Zephon and Amplitude Studio's 2017 game Endless Space 2.Follow Bryant Francis, Senior Editor, on Bluesky or LinkedIn.See more from Bryant FrancisDaily news, dev blogs, and stories from Game Developer straight to your inboxStay UpdatedYou May Also Like #zenimax #union #signs #tentative #bargaining

WWW.GAMEDEVELOPER.COM

ZeniMax QA union signs tentative bargaining agreement with Microsoft
Bryant Francis, Senior EditorMay 30, 20253 Min ReadImage via ZeniMax Workers United-CEWA.At a GlanceZeniMax Workers Untied-CWA has signed a tentative contract agreement with Microsoft after two years of negotiating.Unionized QA workers at ZeniMax celebrated a huge win today with the news that their union, ZeniMax Workers United-CWA, and ZeniMax parent company Microsoft finally reached a tentative contract agreement two years after unionizing in 2023.The new contract includes "substantial" across-the-board wage increases and new minimum salaries for employees and policies for introducing AI tools in the workplace (policies first agreed upon in late 2023).It also includes protections against arbitrary dismissal, grievance procedures, and a robust crediting policy to ensure QA workers are recognized for their work on ZeniMax games. The CWA declared that the agreement "sets new standards" for the video game industry."Video games have been the revenue titan of the entire entertainment industry for years, and the workers who develop these games are too often exploited for their passion and creativity," said ZeniMax QA tester Jessee Leese, who is a member of the bargaining committee. "Our first contract is an invitation for video game professionals everywhere to take action."The agreement follows a brief public spat between the two parties from November 2024 through April 2025. The union has spoken out against Microsoft's decision to outsource more work to outside contractors and accused it of "hindering" contract negotiations, briefly going on strike last year and voting to authorize a second strike this spring. Microsoft denied the accusation, saying made "fair" proposals to the bargaining committee (Raven Software union members made similar claims about Microsoft in August 2024).Related:That the two groups could go from public verbal sparring to a successful bargaining agreement in under two months shows that some form of progress came after workers threatened that second strike.Unions possess negotiation tools that individuals don'tAdapting the union's contract and tactics is a potentially powerful way to In 2024 ZeniMax union leaders Autumn Mitchell and Chris Lusco broke down the benefits of the unionization process in a conversation on the Game Developer Podcast, explaining that choosing to unionize has created new bargaining opportunities that individual employees don't possess.For instance, the pair discussed the concept of "recall rights," a term the included in the bargaining agreement that requires employers to offer laid-off employees a chance to return to the company if they reopen their positions within 2-3 years after being laid off. Unionizing workers in the United States also benefit what's known as a "status quo" condition for workers' contracts that are immediately imposed when a union is declared, preventing their employer from suddenly shrinking benefits.Related:"We're talking about eliminating that 'revolving door' at least to some degree," Mitchell said at the time, in reference to how high turnover can gut a studio's institutional knowledge.Their tactics will certainly be useful to other unions negotiating bargaining agreements with Microsoft. At neighboring subsidiary Activision Blizzard, the developers working on the Warcraft and Overwatch series are waging their own (verbal) battle with the company, as are the employees at Raven Software and workers across Activision Blizzard's QA teams.Read more about:Top StoriesUnionizationXboxAbout the AuthorBryant FrancisSenior Editor, GameDeveloper.comBryant Francis is a writer, journalist, and narrative designer based in Boston, MA. He currently writes for Game Developer, a leading B2B publication for the video game industry. His credits include Proxy Studios' upcoming 4X strategy game Zephon and Amplitude Studio's 2017 game Endless Space 2.Follow Bryant Francis, Senior Editor, on Bluesky or LinkedIn.See more from Bryant FrancisDaily news, dev blogs, and stories from Game Developer straight to your inboxStay UpdatedYou May Also Like

0 Reacties 0 aandelen

Please log in to like, share and comment!