Three AI companiesOpenAI, Google, and Perplexityare on the verge of receiving approval to sell their technology, hosted on their own cloud systems, directly to the government, a person familiar with the matter tells Fast Company. That authorization will be on a low impact and pilot level, the person said, but constitutes a major step toward independence.
That independence could help those companies avoid some of the complications created by ongoing partnerships between AI firms and longtime government tech contractors. As large language models have gone mainstream, AI companies have often relied on tech firms that have already passed arduous government security reviewsincluding Microsoft, Palantir, and Amazon Web Servicesto host their chatbots for federal users. In the early days, these partnerships made it easier for AI labs to quickly get their tech in front of government officials, but also meant ceding at least some control over when and how their AI was made available.
The downside of that kind of dependence is now playing out in the brewing feud between Anthropic and the Pentagon, which appears to have been fueled, in part, by its partnership with Palantir. The Defense Department is threatening to cancel a $200 million contract after Anthropic requested limits on the use of its AI for certain applications, including autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.
Anthropics Claude model was made available to military officials with the help of Palantir’s systems and was even used in the U.S. operation to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, according to reports. According to Semafor, tensions mounted after an Anthropic official asked a Palantir executive how Claude had been used in the operation, prompting concern inside the Pentagon about the companys willingness to support military applications.
This is all to say that not relying on a company like Palantir makes selling to the government far less complicated. In pursuit of that independence, OpenAI, Perplexity, and Google applied for, and received, expedited review of their cloud systems last year under a federal security initiative called FedRAMP 20x. Now, Fast Company can report, theyre almost certain to be approved. These approvals are separate from any decision by a specific federal agency to purchase their products, but they show the companies have taken concrete steps to engage the government on their own terms.
Anthropic, by contrast, has leaned heavily on partners like Palantir to help sell its technology to government customers. The company does not appear to have participated in FedRAMP 20x, though its not clear why. Still, the question of independence is one Anthropic has publicly acknowledged. We would also like to be able to directly provide services to governments and not necessarily go through a partner at all times, Michael Sellito, the companys head of global affairs, told FedScoop in 2024.
Neither Palantir nor Anthropic responded to Fast Companys request for comment.
Sebastian Siemiatkowski, CEO of Swedish fintech company Klarna, says the organization is set to drastically downsize. And he says he shares his outlook on the workforce with another CEO: Anthropics Dario Amodei.
Siemiatkowski made the comments on the 20 VC podcast with Harry Stebbings earlier this week, where the CEO didn’t deny that the company has been steadily shrinking.The CEO said that currently the company has about 3,000 employees. That’s down from 7,000 just four years ago. In another four, he says there will likely be less than 2,000a reduction of one-third.
Siemiatkowski cited both layoffs and the employees leaving the company and not being replaced, and explained that AI’s integration allows for fewer employees.Klarna’s slimming down comes even as buy now, pay later (BNPL) services are booming. Around 30% of Americans say they have used them, according to a 2025 Bankrate report. And in 2025, according to a PartnerCentric survey, 35% said they planned to use the services even more. The popularity is driven by the fact that Klarna, like other BNPL options, allows shoppers to split purchases into interest-free installments, pay within 30 days, or even opt for longer-term financing options. Likewise, thousands of retailers now accept BNPL.
Still, the success of such businesses no longer seems to equate to the need for more employees, as AI’s impact looms largersomething some leaders have been increasingly warning about.
Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei wrote of his gravest concerns about AI in a recent essay that included items like loss of autonomy, “misuse for destruction” and “powerful AI” which he writes is “definitely coming.”
Amodei writes: “I think it should be clear that this is a dangerous situationa report from a competent national security official to a head of state would probably contain words like ‘the single most serious national security threat weve faced in a century, possibly ever.’ It seems like something the best minds of civilization should be focused on.” The CEO also predicted AI could cut 50 percent of all white-collar entry-level jobs in the next one to five years, doubling down on a stance he’s warned about previously. Worryingly, Klarna’s CEO doesn’t disagree with Amodei’s stance, acknowledging that he’s “in Dario’s camp” on concerns around AI.
“I want to be honest about the fact that I do think there’s going to be a very big shift,” Siemiatkowski said on the podcast.
Specifically, he echoed the concerns around job loss. “I’m an optimist at heart, but I also want to be a realist around what’s going to happen in the shorter term, and it’s going to be a lot of turmoil in this.”
Regardless, while the CEO seemed to express some major concerns around AI’s rapid advancements, Siemiatkowski has leaned into them heavily. In 2024, he announced that AI could handle a growing number of jobs as the company paused hiring and cut 2,000 employees. But it wasn’t long before customer satisfaction dipped, and the company had to scramble to reassign workers to customer support to handle the fallout.
The CEO later took to X to explain what went wrong, writing that he was “tremendously embarrassed” about the turn of events.
Fast Company reached out to Klarna to inquire on whether the company would scale back its relationship with AI. A representative said Klarna “did not lean too much into AI,” but its “thinking on human customer service” has changed.
The representative continued, “When you automate a large amount of the simpler customer service requests, you are left with the most complex and sensitive cases . . . So we have begun to directly hire a small number of human agents directly employed by Klarna, not at outsourced providers.”
When I cofounded Brilliant Earth in 2005, e-commerce was still in its infancy. I believed technology could reshape the jewelry industry entirelychanging how customers find pieces they love, personalizing their own designs, and reimagining the customer experience. We launched as a digital-first venture to do just that.
Now, two decades into our pioneering digital journey, I’ve realized something surprising: Our most sophisticated online tools have actually made in-person interactions more valuable. I believe the brands leading the next wave of innovation aren’t choosing between digital and physical. They’re using digital excellence to help create meaningful in-person connections and lifelong brand affinity.
BOLSTER HUMAN CONNECTION THROUGH DIGITAL
Over the years, Brilliant Earth introduced several industry firsts. Before we launched, buying diamond jewelry online was unheard of; we became one of the first companies to sell engagement rings and fine jewelry through e-commerce, and were early to offer lab-grown diamonds when few knew what they were. We developed online tools for customers to design their own engagement rings and fine jewelry. But we also understood that the future wouldnt be dominated by digital. Seamlessly integrating online and physical experiences would be key.
Even as digital tools get more sophisticated, leading companies aren’t eliminating the in-person element. They’re doing the opposite: harnessing these innovations to make human touchpoints more meaningful. In doing so, they create branded experiences that feel more personal and authentic than traditional retail was doing.
This transformation spans every retail categoryfrom IKEA’s Place app that lets customers visualize furniture in their homes to Nike’s data-driven inventory localization, based on neighborhood shopping patterns. Even legacy media companies are getting involved: Condé Nast is preparing to launch Vette, a creator-commerce platform using AI-driven tools to help influencers curate personalized storefronts. It bridges the gap between content discovery and purchase decisions.
The key insight for any industry leader is this: Modern shoppers no longer see a divide between online and offline shopping. Both are now intrinsic parts of the customer journey, not opposing concepts. No matter your industry, customers expect each digital tool to serve a dual purpose: enhancing their online experience while creating richer, more meaningful interaction when they choose to engage in person. The companies getting this right aren’t using digital tools to replace human touchpoints. They’re giving their teams better information, so every interaction feels more personal and valuable.
3 PILLARS OF NEXT-GENERATION EXPERIENCE
As I look toward the future, I see three fundamental principles driving the evolution of exceptional customer experiences:
1. Invest in tech-powered personalization: Digital tools that recognize customers across all touchpoints are delivering increasingly sophisticated personalization. Take Ralph Lauren’s “Ask Ralph,” which launched last fall. Its like having a personal stylist in your pocketone who knows the brands entire archive, drawing upon that knowledge to provide personalized styling advice, complete with live inventory. The experience feels like a natural extension of the world Ralph has built for almost 60 years.
In the big box world, Walmart is using AI features like a personalized algorithm that can predict and preempt customer needs, including frequency and quantity of orders. It expanded testing of a GenAI shopping assistant to help customers make the best choices for their needs. At Brilliant Earth, we’ve taken this approach into our showrooms where we use dozens of customer data points to curate each appointment and continue that personalized journey long after customers leave our stores. But we’ve also learned to lean into what our customers find most special: the unique guidance and expertise they get from our jewelry specialists. The goal is to build unified systems that remember customer preferences no matter how they shop with you, so every interaction feels personal and connected.
2. Focus on immersive technologies to eliminate friction: Deploying smart technologies to allow customers to experience products before purchasing will fundamentally change how customers interact with your brand world. Released last summer, Warby Parker’s new AI-powered Advisor feature scans customers’ faces to capture style preferences and measurements, then recommends glasses while offering virtual try-on capabilities that calculate frame sizes.
And Sephora launched its latest digital extension this fall called My Sephora Storefront, where creators can build their own beauty shops inside Sephora’s website and app, so shoppers never have to leave the platform. These integrations eliminate the traditional friction points between discovery and purchase, and allow customers to experience products virtually before committing.
3. Emphasize human-AI collaboration: The most successful AI implementations preserve authentic human connections while augmenting capabilities. Condé Nast’s Vette platform demonstrates another approach by using AI to handle complex backend operationslike inventory management, product recommendations, and sales analytics. This allows creators to focus on what humans do best: building authentic relationships with their audiences and providing personal curation reflecting their unique voice and taste. The best AI implementations don’t replace peoplethey make them better at their jobs. Smart companies are learning to use AI to give their teams insights about individual customers, making every interaction more relevant without losing the human touch that builds real loyalty.
THE NEXT WAVE OF INNOVATION
I’m proud of how far we’ve come in using innovation to enable self-expression and connect with authentic human needs at Brilliant Earth. But more than that, I’m energized by the opportunities ahead.
Todays digital transformation has given us capabilities that seemed impossible just a few years ago. While there are many questions about AI’s future impact on jobs and human connection to be answered, the companies and leaders succeeding right now aren’t using AI to eliminate human contact. They’re using it to make those human moments count even more. Those who get this right will reshape the next generation of retail.
Beth Gerstein is the cofounder and CEO of Brilliant Earth.
Mark Zuckerberg and opposing lawyers dueled in a Los Angeles courtroom on Wednesday, where the Meta CEO answered questions about young peoples use of Instagram, his congressional testimony, and internal advice hes received about being authentic and not robotic.
Zuckerberg’s testimony is part of an unprecedented social media trial that questions whether Meta’s platforms deliberately addict and harm children.
Attorneys representing the plaintiff, a now 20-year-old woman identified by the initials KGM, claim her early use of social media addicted her to the technology and exacerbated depression and suicidal thoughts. Meta Platforms and Googles YouTube are the two remaining defendants in the case, which TikTok and Snap have settled.
Beginning his questioning, the plaintiff’s attorney Mark Lanier laid out three options of what people can do regarding vulnerable people: help them, ignore them, or prey upon them and use them for our own ends. Zuckerberg said he agrees the last option is not what a reasonable company should do, saying, I think a reasonable company should try to help the people that use its services.
When he was asked about his compensation, Zuckerberg said he has pledged to give almost all of his money to charity, focusing on scientific research. Lanier asked him how much money he has pledged to victims impacted by social media, to which Zuckerberg replied, I disagree with the characterization of your question.
Lanier also asked Zuckerberg about what he characterized as extensive media training, including for testimonies like the one he was giving in court. Lanier pointed to an internal document about feedback on Zuckerberg’s tone of voice on his own social media, imploring him to come off as authentic, direct, human, insightful and real, and instructing him to not try hard, fake, robotic, corporate or cheesy in his communication.
Zuckerberg pushed back against the idea that hes been coached on how to respond to questions or present himself, saying those offering the advice were just giving feedback.
Regarding his media appearances and public speaking, Zuckerberg said, I think Im actually well known to be sort of bad at this.
The Meta CEO has long been mocked online for appearing robotic and, when he was younger, nervous when speaking publicly. In 2010, during an interview with renowned tech journalists Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg, he was sweating so profusely that Swisher asked him if he wanted to take off the hoodie that was his uniform at the time.
Lanier spent a considerable stretch of his limited time with Zuckerberg asking about the companys age verification policies.
I dont see why this is so complicated, Zuckerberg said after a lengthy back-and-forth, reiterating that the companys policy restricts users under the age of 13 and that they work to detect users who have lied about their ages to bypass restrictions.
Zuckerberg mostly stuck to his talking points, referencing his goal of building a platform that is valuable to users and, on multiple occasions, saying he disagreed with Laniers characterization of his questions or of Zuckerbergs own comments.
Zuckerberg has testified in other trials and answered questions from Congress about youth safety on Meta’s platforms, and he apologized to families at that hearing whose lives had been upended by tragedies they believed were because of social media. This trial, though, marks the first time Zuckerberg will answer similar questions in front of a jury. And, again, bereaved parents are expected to be in the limited courtroom seats available to the public.
The case, along with two others, has been selected as a bellwether trial, meaning its outcome could impact how thousands of similar lawsuits against social media companies are likely to play out.
A Meta spokesperson said the company strongly disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit and said they are confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.
One of Meta’s attorneys, Paul Schmidt, said in his opening statement that the company is not disputing that KGM experienced mental health struggles, but rather disputing that Instagram played a substantial factor in those struggles. He pointed to medical records that showed a turbulent home life, and both he and an attorney representing YouTube argue she turned to their platforms as a coping mechanism or a means of escaping her mental health struggles.
Zuckerberg’s testimony comes a week after that of Adam Mosseri, the head of Meta’s Instagram, who said in the courtroom that he disagrees with the idea that people can be clinically addicted to social media platforms. Mosseri maintained that Instagram works hard to protect young people using the service, and said it’s not good for the company, over the long run, to make decisions that profit for us but are poor for peoples well-being.
Much of Mosseri’s questioning from the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mark Lanier, centered on cosmetic filters on Instagram that changed peoples appearance a topic that Lanier is sure to revisit with Zuckerberg. He is also expected to face questions about Instagrams algorithm, the infinite nature of Metas feeds and other features the plaintiffs argue are designed to get users hooked.
Meta is also facing a separate trial in New Mexico that began last week.
Kaitlyn Huamani and Barbara Ortutay, AP technology writers
A new $7.25 billion settlement between Bayer and a group of cancer patients could wrap up a huge wave of lawsuits against the company over allegations that it didnt warn consumers about cancer risks associated with the weedkiller Roundup.
Bayer faces more than 180,000 claims over Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate the chemical at the center of the controversy. Most of those claims are from people who used the weedkiller, which is sold at any hardware or garden store, at home. The lawsuits have prompted Bayer to pull glyphosate out of many products under the Roundup brand, though glyphosate is still commonly used by farmers and in the agriculture business broadly.
The science around glyphosate is controversial. The Environmental Protection Agency has said that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in users if applied as directed, and does not require companies selling it to include a warning about links to cancer. The World Health Organizations cancer agency classified the chemical as a substance likely to cause cancer in humans more than a decade ago, though those findings faced scrutiny a few years later over reports that the published version differed from a draft.
Just last month, a landmark study determining that glyphosate didnt pose a risk to human health was retracted, 25 years after its publication. The retraction, prompted by emails revealing Monsantos influence, undermines a longstanding regulatory foundation that has cited the key research for decades.
A long battle
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over Bayers effort to fend off an onslaught of cancer-related lawsuits over Roundup in April. While the new settlement proposal wont affect that case, it could help both Bayer and the plaintiffs hedge their bets if the Supreme Court doesnt side in their favor.
Bayer, a German pharmaceutical and biotech giant, is best known for making the common pain reliever Aspirin. The company acquired Roundup maker Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, betting that owning a major player in the agriculture business would diversify its business and pay dividends down the road as farming supplies boomed. That hasnt come to pass, and Monsantos costly litigation has further dragged Bayers share price down from its highs around a decade ago. Today, Bayer is worth less than the price it once paid for Monsanto.
Hundreds of thousands of lawsuits
Out of the cases against Bayer over Roundup so far, only a sliver were decided by a jury, yielding 13 decisions favoring the pharmaceutical giant and 11 siding with plaintiffs. Last year, a jury in Georgia ordered Bayer to pay $2.1 billion in damages to a plaintiff who suffers from non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer that begins in white blood cells. Some other cases have been resolved in separate settlements, but many remain unresolved.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bayer would make payments into a designated fund on a yearly basis for 21 years, which could total up to $7.25 billion, to resolve most of the outstanding Roundup lawsuits. That money would then be doled out to people based on their Roundup usage, age of cancer diagnosis and the severity of their disease.
Under the settlements terms, agricultural and industrial workers who faced regular exposure to the products chemicals could receive an average of $165,000 if they were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma under the age of 60. Residential users, those diagnosed later in life, and those with less aggressive cancer could receive tens of thousands in compensation.
Bayer has said that it could still cancel the settlement, which does not yet have court approval, if too many plaintiffs decide to opt out and reject its terms.
Supreme Court poised to decide
Last month, the Supreme Court said that it would hear a case on the issue in order to determine if federal laws protect Bayer, which complies with the Environmental Protection Agencys rules, from lawsuits filed in state courts. The EPA does not require products including glyphosate to be sold with a cancer warning.
Bayer praised the Supreme Courts decision to take the case, arguing that farmers need regulatory clarity around the widely used product and calling the milestone an important part of its effort to significantly contain litigation around Roundup. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said.
On February 2, wellness influencer Peter Attia stepped down from his role as chief science officer at the protein company David. On February 12, Goldman Sachs top lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler announced her resignation from the company. And on February 13, Hollywood agent Casey Wasserman revealed that he would sell his talent agency.
All of these business execs worked in very different spheres, but their sudden departures can be traced back to the same point of origin: their names cropped up again and again in the Department of Justices (DOJ) latest trove of Epstein files, released in late January. Over the past few weeks, many prominent figures have stepped down from their high-profile positions amidst growing scrutiny over their relationships to the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A new tool called Jwiki is dedicated to compiling all of that information in one placeon, as the name suggests, a webpage designed to mimic Wikipedia.
[Screenshot: Jwiki]
Its the latest interface from a team of developers who have spent the last several months converting the notoriously dense and convoluted Epstein files into easily searchable interfaces, condensing about 3.5 million pages of material spread across .txt files, zip files, and Google Drive folders into recognizable formats.
With Jwiki, instead of sifting through all of the Epstein files for individual mentions of various public figures (a nearly impossible task for members of the public), users can simply search their name and receive a succinct summary of their involvement with Epstein.
How two technologists build the “Jsuite”
Jwiki comes courtesy of a team led by technologists Riley Walz and Luke Igel. Walz has previously built several viral websites, including San Franciscos Tech Jester and a tool to track the citys parking cops. In November 2025, Igel, whos the CEO of an AI company called Kino, requested Walzs help with a tool to demystify Epsteins emails. They built the first iteration in just one night.
That initial tool, called Jmail, allows users to wade through Epsteins seemingly endless email correspondence in a Gmail-style interface. To build it, Walz and Igel used Googles Gemini AI to run optical character recognition (OCR) on the individual emails and map it onto a simulation of Epsteins actual inbox.
[Screenshot: Jwiki]
Since then, Walz and Igel have relied heavily on vibe coding to expand the Jsuite into other apps like Jamazon; which tracks Epsteins Amazon orders through receipts; Jflights, which converts his flight data into a searchable map; and Jphotos, which compiles the files thousands of photos into one massive folder. In an interview with the publication Arena on February 12, Walz and Igel said that the Jsuite is receiving an average of 10,000 visitors daily, with a peak of well over a million visitors in a single day.
How to use Jwiki
According to a post from the official Jmail account on X, Walz and Igels team built Jwiki using their existing Jmail data. Upon first opening the site, users are greeted with a homepage that includes sections for a daily featured article, top articles by email volume, and top articles by viewership. The wiki includes entries on people, places, and events referenced in the files.
[Screenshot: Jwiki]
Users can either click on one of these displayed entries or look into their own areas of interest via a search bar. Clicking on Lesley Groff, Epsteins longtime executive assistant, for example, leads to a Wikipedia-style summary that includes a breakdown of her background, correpondence with Epstein (a whopping 224,747 emails), personal connections, and visits to Epsteins properties. It also includes a concluding section called Criminal Exposure Assessment,” which, according to Jmails post on X, cites U.S. codes that people may have been breaking as seen in the Jmail record.
[Screenshot: Jwiki]
We believe that the US government has a responsibility to fully investigate the people implicated by these files, the X post reads.
Each Jwiki entry comes with the important caveat that its contents were generated by AI, meaning it’s fairly likely the resource is peppered with some inaccuracies and potential hallucinations. To address that concern, the Jmail team announced on X on February 18 that theyd opened the site for public contributions. Users can now sign in, propose edits to articles, and view the full revision history of every change. The edits are then reviewed and either approved or denied by a team of admins. Ultimately, the team says, its goal is Wikipedia-style open editing, where the articles self-correct.
As the Epstein files slowly begin to bring powerful business leaders to account (albeit not in a court of law), Jwiki is one of the best tools available to the public so far to understand exactly what the rich and powerful were up to behind closed doors.
JPMorganChase said Wednesday it plans to open more than 160 new bank branches in over three dozen statesand renovate nearly 600 moreas part of a nationwide, multibillion-dollar push for more affordable financial services.
Those branches will include locations in rural and low-to-moderate income (LMI) communities in the Northeast, Southeast, America’s “Heartland” or Midwest, and Southwestincluding in North and South Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Tennessee this year.
JPMorganChase tells Fast Company those will include branch locations in: “Greater Philadelphia, Greater Boston, the Tampa Bay area, MinneapolisSaint Paul metro area, RaleighCary metro area/The Triangle, and the Charlotte metro area.”
According to The Brookings Institution, the affordability crisis has reached every corner of the country, hitting middle-and-lower income earners the hardest, resulting in a 29% cumulative price increase since 2019 for Americans.
Along with opening the branches, Chase plans to invest in local businesses, affordable housing, and job training, help fuel economic growth, and build stronger communities.
Every Chase branch is a reflection of its neighborhood, Jennifer Roberts, CEO of Chase consumer banking said in the release. Each branch represents our promise to stand alongside our customers as partners, helping them navigate and achieve their financial goals.
The expansion is part of Chases 2024 strategy to open more than 500 new branches, renovate 1,700 locations, and hire 3,500 employees nationwide over a three year-period.
JPMorganChase financials
Shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) were trading up 1.3% in midday trading on Wednesday at the time of this writing.
The company reported strong fourth-quarter earnings last month with adjusted earnings per share (EPS) coming in at $5.23, exceeding estimates of $4.92, and better-than-expected revenue of $46.77 billion versus, $46.20 billion. At the time of this writing, it had a market capitalization of over $847 billion.
Emerald Fennells Wuthering Heights is a love-it-or-hate-it kind of filmand for the most part, critics are falling in the hate it camp.
The new adaptation of Emily Brontës classic novel is catching flak as critics say it oversimplifies a complex story of generational trauma and racial tension into a straightforward romance laced with Fennells signature shock value (shes also the director behind Promising Young Woman and Saltburninfamous bathtub scene and all). But a recent comment from star and producer Margot Robbie takes criticism out of the equation, instead saying that as an artist, critics opinions never cross her mind.
At a recent panel for Vogue Australia, Robbiegiven her dual role as producer and leading actresswas asked how much she thinks about her audience while making a movie, as opposed to immersing herself in the story.
I consider audience always. Ive never, ever been on set and thought, What are the critics going to think of this?’ Robbie replied. Im like, Whats an audience going to feel right now? Whats their emotional response going to be?
“I just believe you should make movies for the people who are going to buy tickets to see the movies,” Robbie added. “Its kind of as simple as that.
Margot Robbie (left) and Emerald Fennell on the set of Wuthering Heights. [Photo: Jaap Buitendijk/Warner Bros.]
Robbie has produced all three of Fennells films, but Wuthering Heights is the first she appears in. I love working with Emerald [Fennell] because she always prioritizes an emotional experience over a heady idea, Robbie said. Shell let a cool idea fall by the wayside to offer the option that is going to be most exciting for an audience.”
Robbies take was immediately divisive online. Some fellow filmmakers, including Cobra Kai writer and director Jon Hurwitz, echoed Robbies sentiment. This is the way. Audience first. Always, Hurwitz wrote in a post on X.
This is the way. Audience first. Always. https://t.co/oX8hRlVH7M— Jon Hurwitz (@jonhurwitz) February 18, 2026
But others took issue with Robbies reading, noting that it frames films more as commercial products than as works of artnot to mention that critics are audience members themselves.
Critic and editor-in-chief of AwardsWatch Erik Anderson pointed out that actors and directors never say this when their films get good reviews in his own response to Robbies statement.
Why do actors and directors never say this when their films get good reviews https://t.co/PLl1LhFHhl— Erik Anderson (@AwardsWatchErik) February 18, 2026
On Rotten Tomatoes, Wuthering Heights is currently labeled rotten, with a critic score of 59%. In his review, The New Yorkers Justin Chang deemed the adaptation extravagantly superficial. For The Guardian, Adrian Horton dubbed it a big movie with a very small mind. And in a take that went viral, Vultures Allison Willmore called the film Fennells dumbest movie, while also praising it as her best to date.
That appeal to the lowest common denominator is working for Wuthering Heights, at least on a commercial level. The film made $83 million globally over the Presidents Day holiday weekend, debuting as the number-one movie in North America. Robbies audience-first philosophy clearly gets butts in seatsbut if every creative ditches their heady ideas in favor of broad appeal, the future of film as an art form doesnt look quite as promising.
Below, Jennifer Reid shares five key insights from her new book, Guilt Free: Reclaiming Your Life from Unreasonable Expectations.
Jennifer is a psychiatrist, assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and busy mom of two boys. She is also the creator, host, and author of A Mind of Her Own podcast and Substack newsletter.
Whats the big idea?
Women are socialized to feel constant guiltnot because they are doing something wrong, but because they are held to impossible expectations. This guilt can be unlearned by understanding its roots and replacing self-criticism with healthier ways of caring, motivating, and relating.
Listen to the audio version of this Book Biteread by Jennifer herselfin the Next Big Idea App.
1. Guilt: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Guilt, in certain circumstances, can be a helpful emotion. For centuries, humans have used guilt to help them connect, collaborate, and build community because the ability to feel guilty when weve harmed someone expresses to them that we care enough to feel badly about what has happened. It also motivates us to try to make a repair.
Guilt begins to lose its benefit, though, when we are victims of manipulative guilt, whether from our families, our social networks, or in our cultural experiences. Gosh, I wish you were able to visit us more often, but I guess youre really busy with your big, important job. Manipulative guilt can feel pretty terrible.
The most toxic guilt, however, is the type of guilt so many women feel almost constantly. This generalized, self-critical guilt leads to thoughts like, Why cant I do anything right? and Why dont I ever feel like Im doing enough? Rather than responding to a particular harm weve committed, were feeling guilty for falling short on several sky-high, unreasonable expectations. Importantly, this is not because we are getting something wrong. This is something women have been socialized to experience, often from a very young age, by the people who care for us and the culture during our lives. We are taught to feel guilty, and we are excellent students.
2. The Four Furies of expectations.
Our guilt triggers are incredibly diverse, involving our roles as friends, sisters, daughters, mothers, romantic partners, and employees. But the foundation of all this guilt is based on just two key factors: our expectations and our perceived reality. This is the Guilt Equation, which tells us that our guilt increases when what we believe we should be doing (our expectation) doesnt match what were able to accomplish (our reality). If, for example, we believe a good mother would never forget to pack a bagged lunch on a field trip day, and it slips our mind, here comes the intense guilt.
The often unreasonably high expectations women face tend to fall into four main categories, which I call the Four Furies:
We are expected to be constant caretakers, making sure everyone in our lives has everything they need, even if this means (and it often does) that we put ourselves last.
We must be hyper-accountable, especially for other peoples thoughts and feelings, even though we dont have any actual control over these: Mom seems sad. If I were a good daughter, I would be able to say the right thing to cheer her up.
We are expected to strive for perfection in all things, but especially in our bodies, our minds, and our self-control.
We should be able to have it all, balancing each of our responsibilities effortlessly, even when we feel totally overwhelmed.
3. Guilty can be sneaky.
Before beginning the process of lowering this guilt, its important to recognize another fundamental truth: guilt may be serving us in a variety of ways. We may believe we need this guilt because it provides us with something we really wantmotivation. After all, if we dont feel guilty for skipping a day at the gym or berating ourselves for choosing to sleep in a little instead of getting up with our alarm, then doesnt this mean we will simply give up on ourselves?
Guilt can also become a protective stand-in for emotions we dont feel safe feeling, much less expressing, such as anger or frustration. We tell ourselves, I shouldnt be so upset that my partner didnt do what I asked. Hes been really stressed at work, and I should be more understanding.
These benefits of guilt, however, are costly because they force us to believe we are getting something wrong, relying on harmful self-criticism to push us toward a goal. Or we repeatedly shift these difficult thoughts and feelings inward where they continue to make us miserable, with no relief in sight. Instead of guilt, we can learn to tap into healthier and more beneficial strategies, such as using self-compassion to enhance motivation and allowing ourselves to experience the full range of natural human emotions. We can also focus our all-important attention on the ways we are already showing up, and the many things we are doing well.
Guilt can also become a protective stand-in for emotions we dont feel safe feeling, much less expressing, such as anger or frustration.
In addition, although we cant control the thoughts and feelings of people in our lives, we can shape our interactions with them through crucial communication strategies, including learning to accept disappointment in ourselves and others, being clear and consistent with our boundaries, and practicing the powerful art of delegation, even when were met with an eye roll or other clear expressions of frustration.
4. We can SPEAK up for less guilt.
To learn concrete steps for lowering guilt, Id like to introduce SPEAK:
Showing Up
Paying Attention
Examining the Evidence
Taking Action
Keep Going
By showing up, you are telling yourself that you are important enough to warrant time, attention, and care, which is no small thing. Paying attention involves becoming a curious, non-judgmental observer of your thoughts and feelings throughout the day, which later allows you to examine the evidence for helpful clues about your own unique guilt triggers.
As you gain these crucial insights, you can begin to take action. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach but instead, it allows you to use the strategies you find most helpful. You could challenge unreasonable expectations by learning to limit unhealthy comparisons, especially with strangers on social media. You can rewrite unfair childhood scripts such as being labeled the girl who took care of everybody, by learning about cognitive restructuring, which involves treating your initial guilty or self-critical thoughts as rough drafts, rather than the final product. You can strengthen your sense of self-efficacy by adopting a growth mindset and using tools from positive psychology to reject the idea that you must be perfect to be loved. Finally, and most importantly, you can vow to just keep at it, every single day.
5. Lowering guilt for ourselves and future genrations.
We have been socialized to feel guilty, repeatedly reminded that we should be striving for unreachable levels of caretaking, accountability, perfection, and life balance. This has not occurred on an individual level, however, but rather as a delayed shift of the expectations women continue to face, even as weve fought for and achieved more opportunities to create the families, careers, and lives we most desire.
This can be our legacy: living our best lives with far less guilt.
But this also represents an opportunity for massive change. Much has been written about intergenerational transmission of trauma, a powerful influence on future populations down to the level of their gene expression. What this suggests is the considerable potential for women of this timethrough our refusal to continue living with constant guilt, unfair expectations, and overlooked contributionsto create a cascade of agency and empowerment that affects generations of women to come. This can be our legacy: living our best lives with far less guilt.
Enjoy our full library of Book Bitesread by the authors!in the Next Big Idea app.
This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
It now takes more than 23 weeks on average for an unemployed person in the US to find a new job. For 1 in 4 unemployed people, or 1.8 million Americans, they are still job hunting six months later.
Long-term unemployment is now at its highest level in three years. Thats not great news for those affected by the layoffs sweeping through companies like Target, Amazon, Nike and Pinterest in the first months of the year.
As of January 2026, there are 386,000 more long-term unemployed Americansthose who have been looking for jobs for more than 27 weeksthan there were in January 2025.
How did we get here?
A low-hire, low-fire environment defined much of 2025 and is now carrying over into 2026. While this has kept the unemployment rate historically low, at just over 4% in December, news of corporate layoffs wereand still arenever far from the headlines.
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported that companies slashed more than 108,000 jobs last month, the most since October and the worst January for job cuts since 2009.
U.S. employers added just 181,000 jobs in all of 2025, compared to 1.46 million in 2024. Private employers added 22,000 jobs in January, payroll processor ADP reported last week, again far fewer than economists had predicted. Another upshot of a low-hire, low-fire environmentfewer people quitting their jobs, with most opting to sit tight in their roles and ride out a tumultuous economy.
This perfect storm means those in need of a job are having a harder time finding one.
Its simple math: The supply of job seekers is far outpacing demand. Roughly one million more people are seeking work than there were available jobs as of December, according to BLS data analyzed by Indeed.
By now, theyve also exhausted their 26 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits in many cases, which replace less than 40% of a persons previous income on average.
The long-term unemployment issue shows no signs of abating. Instead, faced with a stagnant market and a broken social contract, many are getting creative with solutions.
The unemployed-to-self-employed pipeline has never been stronger. Others are channelling their inner doomsday prepper.
Some, instead of spending their days poring over job listings or firing out résumés, are simply accepting their fate and reframing it as their funemployment era.
Whatever the casea lot of Americans are out of work. And staying that way for a long time.
