As data centers strain the power grid, utilities are scrambling to build new power plants. But a startup in California is one of a handful focusing on the problem from a different angle: building a network of batteries and solar panels at homes to relieve pressure on the grid more quickly.
In some cases, thanks to state funding, low-income homeowners can get the systems installed at no cost, and then start saving on their electric bills and have access to backup power if the grid goes down. Others pay a subscription thats lower than their previous electric bill. Then the startup, called Haven, manages the flow of power back to the grid.
Why utilities see Havens network as a mini power plant
We own and operate all the batteries, says Haven CEO Vinnie Campo. (The company focuses on batteries, but also installs and owns connected rooftop solar panels at some homes.) We’re then able to provide to the utility a fixed dispatch or fixed capacity from those batteries. They can almost think of it as building a mini power plant exactly where they need it.
Haven works with utilities to identify spots in the grid that need helpsubstations that are overloaded, or feeder lines that are constrainedand then partners with the utility to find homeowners in those areas who are interested in installing new equipment at their homes.
[Photo: Kyle Gentz/courtesy Haven]
In aggregate, thousands of coordinated batteries are a powerful tool. Its not that we actually need that much net new generation. What the grid really needs is more power at the right time, Campo says. The grid is mostly underutilized its in the 30-40% range on a given day. Batteries are the most important part of the missing piece here, which is how you can absorb as much energy in the middle of the day when its being produced but not used, and shift that to later periods in the evening when you have a lot of electric demand coming online.
A no-cost way for low-income homeowners to get batteries
For homeowners, theres a clear incentive to participate as electric bills keep surging. In California, between 2019 and 2023, electricity rates rose by 47%. Customers who subscribe to Haven can get 20-30% savings on electric bills, helping ease the pain. For customers who qualify for state funding and install both solar and batteries, bills can drop by 90%.
They see 80 to 90% bill savings because they dont have to pay anything for it, but theyre getting all of the benefits of the solar and battery system, says Campo.
[Photo: Kyle Gentz/courtesy Haven]
The state funding comes through Californias larger Self-Generation Incentive Program, which started rolling out $280 million for batteries and optional paired solar panels earlier this year. To qualify for the rebates, homeowners have to meet low-income requirements and live in areas that are at high risk of fires or public safety power shutoffs.
In theory, low-income homeowners could get the systems on their own. But that could require spending tens of thousands of dollars upfront and then waiting months to get reimbursement and the savings on their electric vills.. Haven helps by handling the paperwork and providing the capital.
The deal is so good that it created another challenge: convincing homeowners that its real. When I found Haven, I was skeptical, says Alex Colocho, a resident in Oceanside, California. I was like, theres no way that a company would put up all the cash up front to get me this product. After digging into it, he eventually decided to move forward, and had a battery installed in August.
Colocho already had solar, and had taken advantage of other state incentives to electrifyfor example, trading in an old gas car for an EV, and switching to a heat pump. As his family used more electricity, they wanted to take better advantage of their solar power, storing it to use at night. But, he says, if this program wasnt there, we would have never gotten the battery.
Customers like Colocho have referred others. Its not no money down, its ‘no money at all,’ and that creates this viral referral loop where they tell their friends and family, says Campo. (Colocho has even created a side gig for himself helping neighbors access this and other incentives.)
Residential batteries could scale faster than new power plants
Haven has installed around 1,000 systems so far, and theres the potential to install as many as 10,000 systems (a mix of battery-only and solar-plus-battery systems) through the state program. The company is also ramping up its subscription offering for other customers. Haven recently raised $40 million in new funding, including a $25 million credit facility, which it will use in part to expand to other states facing similar grid challenges. Already, its virtual power plant is around 10 megawatts in size, with another 50 megawatts of capacity in development in California.
[Photo: Kyle Gentz/courtesy Haven]
The process isnt completely seamless yet, since the company still has to deal with delays from local permitting and getting connected to he grid. Still, unlocking more energy capacity this way is faster than trying to build large new power plantsparticularly things like new nuclear tech that may be a decade away from being ready, or gas plants that face five-year delays on new turbines.
One recent report suggested that tech companies should help pay to install solar and batteries at homes as a way to access the power they need more quickly and avoid emissions. Some other companies, like Base Powera startup that raised $1 billion in Octoberare taking a similar approach as Haven and also building networks of batteries to support the grid.
Even though it might seem like a consumer service business at first glance, Haven really is an infrastructure business where we’re building battery capacity for utilities, says Campo. There’s a lot of talk around grid-scale batteries and energy storage. We think the missing piece and the fast deployment piece is residential.
Generative artificial intelligence has become widely accepted as a tool that increases productivity. Yet the technology is far from mature. Large language models advance rapidly from one generation to the next, and experts can only speculate how AI will affect the workforce and peoples daily lives.
As a materials scientist, I am interested in how materials and the technologies that derive from them affect society. AI is one example of a technology driving global changeparticularly through its demand for materials and rare minerals.
But before AI evolved to its current level, two other technologies exemplified the process created by the demand for specialized materials: cars and smartphones.
Often, the mass adoption of a new invention changes human behavior, which leads to new technologies and infrastructures reliant upon the invention. In turn, these new technologies and infrastructures require new or improved materialsand these often contain critical minerals: those minerals that are both essential to the technology and strain the supply chain.
The unequal distribution of these minerals gives leverage to the nations that produce them. The resulting power shifts strain geopolitical relations and drive the search for new mineral sources. New technology nurtures the mining industry.
The car and the development of suburbs
At the beginning of the 20th century, only 5 out of 1,000 people owned a car, with annual production around a few thousand. Workers commuted on foot or by tram. Within a 2-mile radius, many people had all they needed: from groceries to hardware, from school to church, and from shoemakers to doctors.
Then, in 1913, Henry Ford transformed the industry by inventing the assembly line. Now, a middle class family could afford a car: Mass production cut the price of the Model T from US$850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916. While the Great Depression dampened the broad adoption of the car, sales began to increase again after the end of World War II.
With cars came more mobility, and many people moved farther away from work. In the 1940s and 1950s, a powerful highway lobby that included oil, automobile, and construction interests promoted federal highway and transportation policies, which increased automobile dependence. These policies helped change the landscape: Houses were spaced farther apart, and located farther away from the urban centers where many people worked. By the 1960s, two-thirds of American workers commuted by car, and the average commute had increased to 10 miles.
Public policy and investment favored suburbs, which meant less investment in city centers. The resulting decay made living in downtown areas of many cities undesirable and triggered urban renewal projects.
Long commutes added to pollution and expenses, which created a demand for lighter, more fuel-efficient cars. But building these required better materials.
In 1970, the entire frame and body of a car was made from one steel type, but by 2017, 10 different, highly specialized steels constituted a vehicles lightweight form. Each steel contains different chemical elements, such as molybdenum and vanadium, which are mined only in a few countries.
While the car supply chain was mostly domestic until the 1970s, the car industry today relies heavily on imports. This dependence has created tension with international trade partners, as reflected by higher tariffs on steel.
The cellphone and American life
The cellphone presents another example of a technology creating a demand for minerals and affecting foreign policy. In 1983, Motorola released the DynaTAC, the first commercial cellular phone. It was heavy, expensive, and its battery lasted for only half an hour, so few people had one. Then in 1996, Motorola introduced the flip phone, which was cheaper, lighter, and more convenient to use. The flip phone initiated the mass adoption of cellphones. However, it was still just a phone: Unlike todays smartphones, all it did was send and receive calls and texts.
In 2007, Apple redefined communication with the iPhone, inventing the touchscreen and integrating an internet navigator. The phone became a digital hub for navigating, finding information, and building an online social identity. Before smartphones, mobile phones supplemented daily life. Now, they structure it.
In 2000, fewer than half of American adults owned a cellphone, and nearly all who did used it only sporadically. In 2024, 98% of Americans over the age of 18 reported owning a cellphone, and over 90% owned a smartphone.
Without the smartphone, most people cannot fulfill their daily tasks. Many individuals now experience nomophobia: They feel anxious without a cellphone.
Around three-quarters of all stable elements are represented in the components of each smartphone. These elements are necessary for highly specialized materials that enable touchscreens, displays, batteries, speakers, microphones, and cameras. Many of these elements are essential for at least one function and have an unreliable spply chain, which makes them critical.
Critical materials and AI
Critical materials give leverage to countries that have a monopoly in mining and processing them. For example, China has gained increased power through its monopoly on rare earth elements. In April 2025, in response to U.S. tariffs, China stopped exporting rare earth magnets, which are used in cellphones. The geopolitical tensions that resulted demonstrate the power embodied in the control over critical minerals.
The mass adoption of AI technology will likely change human behavior and bring forth new technologies, industries, and infrastructure on which the U.S. economy will depend. All of these technologies will require more optimized and specialized materials and create new material dependencies.
By exacerbating material dependencies, AI could affect geopolitical relations and reorganize global power.
America has rich deposits of many important minerals, but extraction of these minerals comes with challenges. Factors including slow and costly permitting, public opposition, environmental concerns, high investment costs, and an inadequate workforce all can prevent mining companies from accessing these resources. The mass adoption of AI is already adding pressure to overcome these factors and to increase responsible domestic mining.
While the path from innovation to material dependence spanned a century for cars and a couple of decades for cellphones, the rapid advancement of large language models suggests that the scale will be measured in years for AI. The heat is already on.
Peter Müllner is a distinguished professor in materials science and engineering at Boise State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
In todays workplace, layoffs are no longer raretheyre a reality many employees have seen up close or have experienced themselves.
On LinkedIn, the posts seem endless, each one paired with the now-familiar Open to Work banner. Or even more jarring: a coworkers Slack avatar is green one minute and grayed out the nextbefore disappearing altogether.
When a teammate is suddenly let go, the instinct is often to comfort them, respond thoughtfullysay the right thing, offer support, and help them feel less alone. But in the emotional blur that follows a layoff, even well-intentioned comments can land poorly, and certain reactions can unintentionally make the moment harder.
So how do you genuinely show up for a colleague or friend whos just been laid offwithout overstepping, fumbling the moment, or offering advice that does more harm than good?
Do ask: How can I help you?
According to organizational psychologist Erica Pieczonka, many of us have a reflex when someone we care about is going through a hard time. We jump straight into fix-it mode: “Something bad happenedlet me give you a solution.”
But sometimes, people dont need advice at all. They just need someone to listen, Pieczonka explained.
Maryland-based Stefanie Magness, who was laid off in 2019 from her role in public affairs, echoed this perspective. If you know someone who is experiencing a layoff, resist the urge to offer advice or solutions. Just be there,” she said. “Sit in the room together or bring a meal for them. Even a text that says ‘I’m thinking of you’ can mean the world to someone who feels like their life is unraveling.
While it might be hard to resist offering a list of solutions, Pieczonka suggests asking, What kind of support do you want right now? or Do you want me to listen, or do you want me to solution with you?
She added: Keeping it light and small, versus dumping on them, will help. Because really, during layoffs, they’re already feeling completely overwhelmed.
Dont say: Youll bounce back
When speaking with someone who has faced a layoff, its important not to fill them with empty reassurances. Pieczonka explained that this might look like: Oh, you’ll bounce back. You got this, you’re a superstar, you’ll move on. There’s something better for you.
Magness said that one unhelpful comment she often heard was: “Something better is coming.” “People love to say this when the world is falling apart. Yes, maybe it is, but when you are standing in the chaos, you are not thinking of what is coming. You’re just trying to breathe.
For Ohio-based Kyle Rankert, who was laid off in 2020 from his role in healthcare, it’s this: You’ll land on your feet. You always do!” “That one always made me feel like the person just assumed, Hey, you’ve been lucky so far, and you’ll be lucky again, Rankert said.
Although it might sound helpful, empty reassurances often fail to validate someones experience of grief, sadness, or anger.
Pieczonka explained that, hypothetically, this is how someone in that position might be feeling: “It feels like you’re not seeing me. I need you to see me.” So avoiding those types of phrases can be really important.
Christina Muller, a workplace mental health expert at R3 Continuum, a national HR and workplace behavioral health agency, expressed a similar sentiment. People want to feel validated. They want to know that people care. And saying something as simple as, I know this must be a really difficult time right now. I understand how this would be really hard, helps them feel that validation, she said.
When someone goes through a layoff, focus on listening. Resist empty platitudes and allow them to express their emotions without trying to fix or minimize what theyre feeling.
Do offer: your time
Sometimes, supporting a colleague or friend whos been laid off doesnt require solving problemsit can be as simple as spending time together.
If you know somebody who got laid off, just asking them to coffee to catch up can be helpful, Pieczonka said. You can also offer healthy habits to do together. Do you want to go on a walk together? Should we get a yoga class? she suggested.
Muller offered a similar approach, encouraging colleagues to simply offer their time, especially if theyre struggling with the layoff: I’m thinking about you, and I’d appreciate being a support for you. Let me know if maybe you’d like to go for a walk sometime, or if there’s anything else that would make you feel best supported right now.
Supporting them and maintaining small routines can help prevent the downward spiral that often follows a major life change. You dont even need to bring up the layoff. Just be their friend.
In conversation, the person who got laid off will probably bring it up and ask for a favor, but you don’t have to feel the pressure to do that. Just being with them and connecting with them is gift enough sometimes, Pieczonka said.
Simply being present is the most meaningful support you can offer.
Dont assume: a layoff is the same for everyone
Its important to remember that a layoff doesnt mean the same thing for everyone. Some people may even feel a sense of relief or excitement, especially if they had already been thinking about leaving their job.
Maybe they had one foot out the door, and now they’re going to get some severance pay and have more freedom to look elsewhere, Muller explained.
Understanding where someone is coming from matters, and if youre reaching out, you might already have a sense of that based on your relationship with them.
Do offer: helpful tools if you have them
When you do offer help, its best to give people the option rather than assuming what they need.
Sometimes people feel a little awkward accepting help from a friend in certain ways, and they might not know if certain things are in your wheelhouse, Muller said.
She added: I always encourage people to preface any ask with, I understand if this isn’t something you’re thinking about right now or want to do. But I’d be happy to help you look at your résumé, if that’s something you’re interested in.
Or, even check to see if theyd be interested in roles at your company. I wish more people who truly knew me would have asked around at their own companies, looking to see who needed help where, Rankert said.
Following Mullers advice, this could look like: I understand if this isn’t something you’re thinking about, but Id be happy to look to see if my company has any openings. Just giving them the option ensures youre not overstepping by assuming what they need, or forcing favrs, even if your intentions are good.
Showing up for a colleague after a layoff doesnt have to be complicated. Overall, avoid empty reassurances, dont assume you know what they need, and resist jumping into fix-it mode. Instead, listen, offer support in manageable ways, and simply be present.
There are three kinds of annoying colleagues. I have already written about dealing with annoying bosses and colleagues. What happens if the source of your annoyance is one of your direct reports?
Once again, dealing with what bothers you depends a lot on what it is causing the problem. Here are four common causes of annoyance.
1. The one who sucks up
It is natural for people who are ambitious to want to find ways to get ahead. Obviously, doing great work is important, but a little self-promotion cant hurt either. After all, if you have lots of direct reports, you may not notice everything that everyone is doing. So, you should expect that the folks who work for you will let you know what they have accomplished. In fact, you should encourage that.
But, some of your direct reports mistake the need to keep you apprised on their successes for a need to suck up. Sucking up means engaging in constant flattery, giving you constant compliments, and otherwise trying to ingratiate themselves to you in ways that are not productive or mission focused. They may do it in one-on-one meetings as well as in more public settings.
It is worth chatting to your suck-ups about this. Let them know that you appreciate their intention to be kind, but that you want to stay focused on the work that needs to be done. It is important to help them to see that this behavior is having the opposite influence from what they intend. The sooner that the suck-ups learn this lesson, the better it will be for everyone.
2. The one who has no initiative
The most successful people in the workplace are those who find the next task that needs to be done and then makes progress on it without waiting to be told what needs to happen. Unfortunately, a lot of people who report to you may do only what they have been told to do and no more. As a result, you may feel like you need to micromanage your supervisees to-do lists.
You should remember that many people in the rising generation of people in the workplace grew up in a world in which everything was scheduled for them. School, activities, even playdates were arranged. Even many college students are in settings in which they have little free choice. It can be hard for people who grew up with all that structure to suddenly take initiative. You have to teach that.
When you find yourself annoyed that your reports arent finding new tasks to do, add a section to your meetings with them. Have them identify one or two things you havent assigned for them that they could do. Talk through with them how to recognize things that need to be done. Youre building a new set of habits, and that will take time. It requires some effort on your part at first, but it pays off in the long-run.
3. The one who (unintentionally) pushes your buttons
Everyone has pet peevesno matter how laid back you appear to be. I tend to be loose about lots of things, but there are a few things that can really get me going. For example, when people use the word impact as a verb, it sets my teeth on edge.
There are some people in this world whose default settings are designed to knock into every one of your peeves. As a result, engaging with them can set your skin crawling before they even say a word.
When that person has some amount of power, then you may just have to grin and bear it. But, you can lay out some ground rules when those people are your direct reports. When I bring on a new team or start working with someone new, I usually give them a small list of things to avoid. It is amazing how that simple conversation makes so much of life go better later.
4. The one who is passive-aggressive
The least benign of the annoying direct reports is the individual who is conflict avoidant but still needs to let you know when they are annoyed. These folks fall under the heading of passive-aggressive. They wont come out and tell you that they are annoyed, frustrated, or angry, but they let it out in other ways.
These days, it is common to have a few direct reports who have this profile. We dont teach good conflict skills, and so people are reluctant to speak up when something bothers them. Then, their bad feelings leak out in other ways.
Like the individuals who dont take initiative, you have to teach your reports to state their conflicts more directly and to create an environment in which it is safe to do that. You need to call out the passive aggressive behavior when you see it as quickly as possible (avoiding public embarrassment, of course). Then, discuss with your direct report that they need to talk out their concerns. Developing their skills to engage in difficult conversations will benefit these individuals immensely.
AI promises a smarter, faster, more efficient future, but beneath that optimism lies a quiet problem thats getting worse: the data itself. We talk a lot about algorithms, but not enough about the infrastructure that feeds them. The truth is, innovation cant outpace the quality of its inputs, and right now those inputs are showing signs of strain. When the foundation starts to crack, even the most advanced systems will falter.
A decade ago, scale and accuracy could go hand-in-hand. But today, those goals often pull in opposite directions. Privacy regulations, device opt-ins, and new platform restrictions have made high-quality, first-party data harder than ever to capture. To fill the gap, the market has flooded itself with recycled, spoofed, or inferred signals that look legitimate but arent.
The result is a strange new reality where a mall that closed two years ago still shows foot traffic, or a car dealership appears to be busy at midnight. These anomalies may seem like innocent glitches, but theyre actually the result of a data ecosystem that values quantity over credibility.
When Volume Becomes Noise
For years, the industry believed that more data meant better insights. Volume signaled strength. More inputs meant more intelligence. But abundance now equals distracting noise. To preserve scale, some suppliers have resorted to filler data or fake signals that make dashboards look healthy while eroding their reliability and authenticity.
Once bad data enters the system, its nearly impossible to separate. Its like mixing a few expired Cheerios into a fresh box; you cant tell which pieces are stale, but you can taste the difference. And at scale, that difference compounds exponentially.
The AI Paradox
Ironically, AI is both part of the problem and part of the solution. Every model depends on training data, and if that foundation is flawed, the insights it produces will be, too. Feed it junk, and it will confidently deliver the wrong conclusions.
Anyone whos used ChatGPT has probably felt this frustration firsthand. While it is an incredibly helpful tool, there are times when it still gives you an inaccurate answer or hallucination. You ask a question, and it promptly delivers a detailed answer with absolute confidence . . . except its all wrong. For a moment, it sounds convincing enough to believe. But once you catch the error, that small seed of doubt sets in. Do it a few more times, and the doubt takes over. Thats what happens when data quality breaks down: the story still looks complete, but you cant be sure whats real.
At the same time, AI gives us new tools to clean up the mess it inherits by flagging inconsistencies. A restaurant showing visitors on Sundays when its closed? A shuttered mall suddenly bustling again? Those are the patterns AI can catch if trained properly.
Still, no single company can solve this alone. Data integrity relies on every link in the chain, from collectors and aggregators to analysts and end users, taking responsibility for what they contribute. Progress will come not from more data, but from more transparency about the data we already have.
Quality Over Quantity
We can no longer assume that more data automatically means better data, and thats okay.
The focus needs to shift from collecting everything to curating what counts, building high-confidence data streams that can be verified. Leaner datasets built on reliable signals consistently produce clearer, more defensible insights than mountains of questionable information.
Many organizations still equate size with credibility. But the real question isnt how much data you have, its how true it is.
The Human Element
Changing how people think about data is harder than changing the technology itself. Teams resist new workflows. Partners worry that less means losing visibility or control. But smaller, smarter datasets often reveal more than massive ones ever could because the signals they contain are real.
But once trust is lost, insights lose its value. Rebuilding that belief through transparency, validation, and collaboration has become just as critical as the algorithms themselves.
AI wont erase the data problem; it will magnify it. We need to be disciplined enough to separate signals from noise and confident enough to admit that more isnt always better.
Because the real advantage isn’t having endless data. Its knowing what to leave behind.
Calibri and Times New Roman have been at war for years. And now the two fonts are once again pitted against each other after the U.S. State Department declared it will be swapping its current official typeface, Calibri, for Times New Roman. It’s a full-circle moment, considering the State Department ditched Times New Roman for Calibri in just 2023.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote that switching to Calibri was “wasteful” and “achieved nothing except the degradation of the departments official correspondence” in an internal department memo obtained by Reuters and The New York Times.
The type designer behind the sans-serif font Calibri calls Rubio’s decision “hilarious and regrettable.”
Lucas de Groot designed Calibri in 2007 specifically for readability on computer screens. The width and curvature of its simple letterform was optimized to be easy to read, and it replaced Times New Roman as the default font in Microsoft Office in 2007 (before being replaced by Aptos in 2023).
In 2023, the State Department decided to replace Times New Roman with Calibri for all official communications and memos. It was a bid for greater accessibility throughout the organization. At the time, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Times New Roman can introduce accessibility issues for individuals with disabilities who use Optical Character Recognition technology or screen readers.
Not everyone was happy about the decision, but de Groot believes it was the right choice.
“There were sound reasons for moving away from Times,” de Groot tells Fast Company in an email. “Calibri performs exceptionally well at small sizes and on standard office monitors, whereas serif fonts like Times New Roman tend to appear more distorted.”
[Animation: FC]
A DEI typeface
In the cable, sent with the subject line “Return to Tradition: Times New Roman 14-Point Font Required for All Department Paper,” Rubio called Calibri “informal” and said it “clashes” with State letterhead. He also criticized it as a “radical” diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiative.
Blinken, Rubio’s predecessor, made the 2023 change to Calibri at the recommendation of the department’s office of diversity and inclusion due its accessibility and ease to read for people with disabilities. Now it’s getting swept up in Trump’s wider war on “woke.”
Times New Roman (top), Calibri (bottom)
Serif typefaces, with their small feet, or serifs, on the letterform, are sometimes perceived to be more conservative. Meanwhile, some believe that sans serifs read as more modern and progressive, though that’s far from a hard-and-fast rule. After all, Trump loves a sans serif font, and Sen. Bernie Sanders has leaned into serif typography for his campaign logos.
“Serif fonts are often perceived as more traditional, but they are also more demanding to use effectively,” says de Groot, noting the spacing is noticeably inconsistent in all-caps Times New Roman in words like “Chicago” and the font appears too thin and sharp when printed at high quality.
For many readers, though, font preference has less to do with politics than it does personal taste and what they’re used to seeing. There were inter-office complaints when the State Department switched to Calibri that sound an awful lot like normal office grumblings when one has to switch from Slack to Teams.
“I think the idea that a typeface is woke is kind of ridiculous,” says type designer Jonathan Hoefler, who designed the Biden-Harris typography and is the co-author of Gotham, a typeface that’s now been used by presidential candidates of both parties.
Typefaces aren’t good or bad, he says. They are simply designed to solve different problems. Times New Roman was designed for newspaper text and Calibri was designed for a screen.
“None of these are bad typefaces, theyre just designed around their circumstances,” he says.
The consulting firm McKinsey and womens nonprofit Lean In just released their annual Women in the Workplace report, which examines how gender disparities are impacting womens career prospects. Unfortunately, this years results show that companies are backsliding on their commitment to workplace equityand one way thats harming women is by making it more difficult for them to work remotely.
This is the 11th annual Women in the Workplace report, and its results reflect a broader pattern across corporate America: a retreat from inclusive efforts amidst a Trump administration thats gone out of its way to cut back on DEI policies. Per the study, two in 10 companies say theyre placing low or no priority on womens career advancement, a figure that rises to three in 10 for women of color. Further, almost one in six companies scaled back on formal sponsorship and discontinued or diminished career development programs with content tailored for women.
This year, only half of companies are prioritizing womens career advancement, part of a trend in declining commitment to gender diversity, the report reads.
One major roadblock to womens success in the workplace is that, in our modern era of flexible work, women are penalized for choosing to work remotelydespite the fact that, at the same time, theyre still expected to shoulder most of the responsibilities in the home.
Flexibility stigma: How women are penalized for working remotely
McKinsey and Lean In found that women who work remotely most of the time are less likely to have a sponsor (or someone championing their career advancement) and far less likely to have been promoted in the last two years than women who work mostly on-site. In contrast, men receive similar levels of sponsorship and promotions, regardless of where they work.
For context, the data showed that 49% of men who worked mostly remotely received a promotion in the last two years, compared to just 37% of women. Similarly, 52% of primarily remote men had a work sponsor, while only 37% of women could say the same. Women who came into the office more often saw a major boost in these percentages, while men saw only a small increase.
On top of these existing challenges, companies are now beginning to remove flexible work options entirely. The report found that one in four companies now offer fewer remote and hybrid opportunities.
Thats especially detrimental to women who, despite being more penalized for working remotely, are simultaneously expected to carry more of the burden at home. In 2024, women with partners were more than three times more likely as men to be responsible for all or more housework. And, this year, almost 25% of entry or senior level women who reported not being interested in a promotion said personal obligations made it difficult to take on more work; whereas only 15% of men said the same.
Flexibility stigma is one of the biggest factors holding women back at work, the report reads. When women use flexible work arrangements, coworkers often assume they are less engaged and productive, while mens commitment is taken for granted.
Gen Zs latest online fixation is the so-called ‘millennial optimism’ era. The TikTok trend sees users posting early-2000s throwback snaps set to The Middle Easts 2009 song Blood. Think moustache tattoos, Apple Photo Booth selfies, and owl-print tops paired with galaxy leggings.
For those too young to experience it firsthand: the 2010s were a simpler, happier time. As one TikTok creator posted: “Millennial optimism era really had me thinking I could make a living as a part-time barista and live in a six-bedroom house with all my friends.” As one commenter confirmed: Tbh this was actually possible in 2012.
In another clip, one Gen Zer wrote: “Every day I’m faced with the sad reality that performative millennial hipsters from 2005-2012 really did have it so much better.”
It was a time where Barack Obama was president. Instagram was still for uploading grainy images of nights out and snapshots of your coffee. One Direction was formed. Life was good.
Right?
In case you may not remember, in 2010, millennials were just starting out in the workforce and unemployment was as high as 10% in the wake of the Great Recession. Many are still carrying the economic baggage well over a decade later, with research showing that those who graduate during a recession could see stagnation in financial growth for up to 15 years.
In the 2010s, college tuition also more than doubled since the 1980s. Wages were suppressed and many millennials struggled to get their careers off the ground (sounds familiar, Gen Z?). In the US, student loans were staggering.
Those who lived through this period have stepped in to set the record straight online. One millennial suggests the TikTok trend is “missing the mark in only the way a TikTok trend can.”
He explained: “I assure you that during the early 2010s-late 2000s, I was the most pessimistic that I’ve ever been in my life.”
Other millennials agreed in the comments, with one writing: “The music was great, the times were hard.”
Another added: “Only the millennials living in New York, in poverty, back in 2010s, fresh out of college and post financial crisis, would understand how far back my eyes rolled when I saw this trend.
They added: we hustled and had 4 different jobs for a decade and were dead inside.”
For millennials at the time, optimism was simply a survival strategy.
So much music that has been deemed millennial optimism is upbeat but has devastating lyrics, a third commented. Which mimics how I felt in my twenties, smiling or partying through severe hopelessness.
Chelsea Fagan, a millennial writer, dubbed the early 2010s “the last era of sweet delusion” earlier this year.
Objectively, things were tough. And yet, despite these hardships, there was still an enduring belief among millennials that if you worked your way up the ladder, you would be rewarded with a house, a car, and a comfortable life, with an employer who would return your loyalty.
The early 2010s were full of a general sense that everything would just work out, Fagan wrote.
Was it a little delusional? Absolutely.
Today? Recent graduates seem to have no such delusion.
Want to visit the U.S.? Be prepared to cough up your social media history.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection filed a legal proposal today that will make it mandatory for many tourists to submit the last five years of their social media history as part of the application required to visit the country. The public has 60 days, until early February, to submit comments to this proposal.
The social media requirement, if enacted, would apply to any visitor from the 42 different countries in the Visa Waiver Program. Rather than applying for a visa, these tourists must submit an application to the Electronic System for Travel Authorization and pay a $40 fee for visits of 90 days or less. That list includes many countries with close ties to the U.S. and whose citizens regularly visit, such as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and Australia.
If enacted, this requirement could strike yet another blow to international tourism. Through October, more than 9.3 million tourists have visited the U.S. from five countries that would be affected by this proposalthe United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, France, and South Koreaand the number of overseas visitors more broadly has fallen 2.5% compared with the same period in 2024, according to figures from the International Trade Administration.
NEW HIGH VALUE DATA FIELDS
The social media requirement isnt the only proposed change for tourists visiting the U.S. The Trump administration also wants to add several other high value data fields to the ESTA application. These include telephone numbers used in the last five years, email addresses used in the last 10 years, and biometrics information that include fingerprints, DNA, and a photo of the iris.
Customs and Border Protection didnt immediately respond to a request for comment from Fast Company. There was no information in the legal filing about how the U.S. plans to enforce this proposed change, particularly given how many tourists visit from the affected countries.
The changes to the requirements for non-visa tourists are being proposed to comply with one of the executive orders President Donald Trump signed in January, related to protecting the country from foreign terrorists. The latest proposal is similar to a new policy that the State Department announced in June requiring that applicants for certain U.S. visas would be instructed to set their social media profiles to the public setting to facilitate the vetting process.
A PARADIGM SHIFT
Such moves are relatively unprecedented. Americans visiting the European Union currently dont have to submit any sort of application if their stay is less than 90 days. That will change once the EU implements a travel authorization requirement, but a social media history isnt part of that vetting process.
And the administrations latest proposal could prove to have a chilling effect on tourism, opponents argue. In 2024, tourism spending produced $2.9 trillion in economic output, according to figures from the U.S. Travel Association.
This proposal marks a paradigm shift of how the government is approaching social media by scrutinizing online speech and using that information to potentially deny travel based on discretion and policy about what the person said, Bo Cooper, a partner at Fragomen, told The New York Times. Itll be interesting to watch the tourism numbers.
Whats more, the proposal sends a worrying message to potential tourists, who should not have to fear that self-censorship is a condition of entry,” Sarah McLaughlin, senior scholar for global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression told Axios.
“This is not the behavior of a country confident in its freedoms,” she said.
