You may think working hard, showing initiative, boosting your skill set, and being a team player is what it takes to be noticed to get promoted. But even with all these notable wins and strides, the call to a higher position often never comes.
The reality of being repeatedly passed over is frustratingand such a promotion plateau can leave you questioning whats really within your control.
To learn more about the concept, Fast Company asked three career experts for advice on how to handle a stagnant job path . . . as well as what you can do to add some momentum to your promotion game plan.
What exactly is a promotion plateau?
The most significant telltale sign is the feeling of stagnation with ones career. This can include feeling like a promotion is coming slower than anticipated, ones skills are not improving, or that one is no longer being challenged in their role, says Ryne Sherman, chief science officer at Hogan Assessments, a personality insights provider based in Tulsa.
Typically, a promotion plateau results from the organizational structure of a business with barriers of advancement: hierarchy, red tape, poor structural systems in place, even budget constraints. In some cases, an employees apathy and lack of transferable skills due to these structural challenges can affect the possibility of being promoted.
Whatever the reason, if you cannot see a clear path for advancement in your organization, you may be at a promotion plateau, Sherman says.
Many large, long-standing organizations have built-in promotional structures that are reliable and predictable in nature. But if you work for smaller, midsized, or younger organizations, they may not have reliable promotional steps built into their system, says Sherman. So you might have to get a bit introspective instead.
Another place to look is in your gut, he also says. Ambitious employees who feel they have reached a promotional plateau will begin to feel dissatisfied with their work.
The upside of hiring ambitious workers is that they are often highly engaged and productive, continues Sherman. The downside? Organizations without a plan for them will struggle to retain talent.
The warning signs
Erin Pash, a Minneapolis-St. Paul-based CEO and founder of Pash Company, a social health incubator, offers the following red flags that signal youre approaching a promotion plateau:
A lack of new responsibilities or challenging assignments
Annual reviews that feel like carbon copies of previous years
Watching peers or junior colleagues advance more quickly
Receiving no substantive discussions about career development during evaluations
Feeling intellectually unchallenged and professionally stuck
Minimal or no exposure to strategic company initiatives
A sense of professional invisibility within the organization
Its a persistent sense that your career has hit an invisible wall, despite your continued dedication and competence, says Pash.
Surmounting the plateau
It requires a multifaceted approach, says Pash, and a commitment of effort and action is expected.
Broaden your skills. Invest in your own skill set and accomplishments by pursuing relevant certifications in your field, and by taking online courses to expand technical and soft skills, Pash explains.
Networkand network some more. Attend workshops and conferences to keep a pulse on your industry. These opportunities can help you develop skills that can keep you aligned with emerging industry trends, says Pash. Plus, attending such events can also build up contacts in your professional circle.
Consider other internal roles. Explore lateral moves within different departments of your company which could offer more room for growth.
Seek targeted feedback. Engage directly with supervisors to understand specific barriers to advancement, says Pash. Request a comprehensive performance review that outlines precise skills and achievements needed for progression, she continues. This candid dialogue transforms performance conversations from passive assessments to active career development planning.
Leave when you have to. Sometimes you can do everything right and still hit a brick wall with your career. Some companies are like old boys’ clubs where your brilliant ideas and hard work feel about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, adds Pash.The smartest move isn’t always fighting the system, but recognizing when it’s time to take your talents somewhere that actually values what you bring to the table. All the skills you learn to overcome the plateau will absolutely prove to be helpful in the event you begin looking to jump to another ship.
What are some ways of finding a growth-friendly organization?
When evaluating whether an organization offers growth opportunities for its employees, Karen Burke, a knowledge adviser with the Society of Human Resource Management, says the following strategies are recommended:
A review of a companys organizational chart can provide valuable insights. Companies with multiple hierarchical levels, such as associate, manager, director, and vice president, typically demonstrate clear pathways for advancement, says Burke.
Assess a companys management structure. The presence of various management positions (e.g., assistant manager, manager, senior manager, assistant vice president, vice president) reflects distributed leadership and increases the likelihood of opportunities to progress into management roles, she points out.
Evaluating a companys departmental structure is helpful as well. Organizations with a broad range of departments (such as marketing, operations, and finance), including specialized sub-departments, tend to offer greater internal mobility. This structure supports both vertical and lateral career progression, outlines Burke.
Consider any evidence of business expansion, such as published information regarding business growth, new initiatives, or expanded networks. Whether identified through company communications or external research, this information often signals the potential for future opportunities, she adds.
Identify project-based teams. Companies that utilize project-based or rotational teams frequently facilitate rapid skill development and provide avenues for promotion, notes Burke.
Monitor a companys vacancy trends. Commonly, frequent or multiple job vacancies may indicate active hiring and suggest the possibility of upward mobility within an organization, Burke says.
Or if youre up for the challengestart your own company
But Burke also says another option, as opposed to adapting to the dynamics and timing that ead to promotions, is simply to go into business yourselfa drastic change, to be sure, but it can lead to drastic growth.
Thats especially if you find yourself in a company or industry with inherently limited growth opportunities, says Burke. Again, sometimes growth-limiting organizational structures are simply too much for you (or anyone else) to overcome.
Should you decide to explore this option, its recommended that comprehensive market research is conducted: evaluating your risk tolerance, and developing a strong business plan. Starting your own business can provide a platform to pursue professional opportunities that align with your aspirations and skill set. Entrepreneurship also offers the ability to shape your own career path, respond proactively to market needs, and foster both personal and professional development.
This strategic approach will enable you to leverage your experience and expertise, resulting in greater autonomy and, possibly, career satisfaction, she says.
Unfortunately, a promotion plateau is tricky, because there can be so many different factors limiting your growth.
Fortunately, though, you do have a lot of options available to you, if youre willing to do your research and think outside the box.
Based on my experience, employees who encounter a promotion plateau typically pursue several strategies to advance their careers, says Burke.
After writing more than one article a day for the last 23 years, Ive accumulated a body of text large enough to train an AI model that could convincingly write like me. With todays technology, it would not be difficult to build a system capable of generating opinions that sound as if they came from Enrique Dansan algorithmic professor that keeps publishing long after Im gone.
That, apparently, is the next frontier of productivity: the digital twin. Startups such as Viven and tools like Synthesia are building AI clones of employees and executivestrained on their voices, writing, decisions, and habits. The idea is seductive. Imagine scaling yourself infinitely: answering emails, recording videos, writing updates, etc., while you do something else, or nothing at all.
But seductive doesnt mean sensible.
A world full of digital ghosts
We are entering an era where professionals will not just automate tasks; they will replicate their personas. A company might build a digital copy of its best salesperson or customer service agent. A CEO might train a virtual twin to respond to inquiries. A university might deploy an AI version of a popular lecturer to deliver courses at scale.
In theory, this sounds efficient. In practice, it invites a form of existential confusion: If the replica is convincing enough, what happens to the person? What does it mean to be productive when your digital version is the one doing the work?
The fascination with cloning ourselves digitally reflects the same temptation that has driven automation for centuries: outsourcing not just labor, but also identity. The difference is that AI can now replicate the voice of that identity, both literally and metaphorically.
What I would look like as an algorithm
I could easily do it. Feed a large language model the millions of words Ive written since 2003every article, every post, every commentand youd get a fairly accurate simulation of me. It would probably have the right tone, vocabulary, and rhythm. It could write plausible articles, maybe even publish them at the same pace.
But it would just miss the point.
I dont write to fill a schedule or a database. I write to think or to teach. Writing, for me, is not an act of production, but of reflection. Thats why, as I explained recently in Why I let AI help me thinkbut never think for me, I never let AI write my articles for me. It makes no sense. Asking a model to think for me would defeat the very reason I sit down every morning to write.
Of course, I use AI constantly: summarizing sources, checking facts, exploring counterarguments, and finding references. But I never let it finish my sentences. Thats the boundary that keeps my work mine.
The illusion of scaling yourself
The promise of digital clones is rooted in the same misconception: that replicating output equals replicating value. Companies now talk about bottling expertise or scaling human capital as if personality were a production line.
But cloning output is not the same as extending competence. A persons professional value is not their words or gestures. Its their judgment, built over time through context and curiosity. A model trained on your past decisions may imitate your tone, but it cannot anticipate your evolution. Its a fossil, not a future.
An AI clone of me could mimic my writing style from 2025. But if I let it publish, it would freeze me in that year forever, a museum piece updated daily.
From productivity to presence
Executives, entrepreneurs, and creators should be careful what they wish for. A digital twin may handle the inbox or record video briefings, but it also dilutes what makes leadership or creativity meaningful: presence.
In Axioss coverage of CEO clones, many executives confessed that they liked their AI doubles but didnt fully trust them. The clone could handle repetitive interactions, but not empathy, timing, or nuancethe qualities that define credibility.
Delegating those things to an algorithm is like sending a mannequin to a meeting: technically present, emotionally vacant.
Corporate immortality and the ethics of legacy
Theres also the question of what happens when your digital twin outlives you. Some companies already treat employee data as assets, so why wouldnt they treat their digital clones the same way?
Imagine a firm continuing to deploy the AI version of a beloved leader or educator after theyve passed away. It might seem like a tribute, but its really a form of corporate necromancy: using a persons intellectual remains to perpetuate a brand.
Its not hard to picture universities selling virtual professors or corporations reusing former CEOs as permanent avatars. In a recent academic paper on digital twins, researchers warned that the boundary between representation and possession is getting blurry. Who owns the clone? Who profits from it?
When we replicate people as data objects, we risk turning identity into infrastructure, into something that can be licensed, monetized, or rebranded at will.
The right way to use AI for personal scale
There is, however, a rational way to use AI for scale: as augmentation, not imitation.
I use AI every day as a thinking partner. It reads drafts, proposes structures, suggests sources, and critiques my logic. Its like having a tireless research assistant, one that never gets offended when I ignore its advice. But the act of reasoning, the decision of what to say and how to say it, remains mine.
Thats the key difference between using artificial intelligence and becoming it. When we outsource thinking, we lose the feedback loop that makes us human: the constant process of reflection, revision, and growth.
Professionals who embrace AI responsibly will amplify their reach without diluting their essence. Those who dont will eventually find their own voices indistinguishable from their machines.
What businesses should learn from this
For companies flirting with employee clones or AI avatars, heres a checklist worth remembering:
Define purpose, not imitation. Dont build AI twins to replicate people. Build systems that free them to do higher-value work.
Keep the human in the authorship loop. AI can assist in drafting, coding, and summarizing, but final judgment must remain human.
Treat data as legacy, not property. Respect employee and creator autonomy. No one should become a perpetual digital asset without consent.
Focus on augmentation, not automation. Use AI to enhance collective intelligence, not to eliminate the need for it.
AI is not here to replace human expertise; its here to challenge how we apply it.
The paradox of self-replication
Soon, anyone with enough data will be able to build a digital version of themselves. Some will see it as immortality; others, as redundancy. I see it as a mirror, a test of what truly matters in human work.
When my own digital twin can write a decent article about AI, I wont be impressed. The question isnt whether it can write. Its whether it can care, and whether it serves me for the purpose Im trying to achieve.
And until algorithms can care about truth, nuance, curiosity, or purpose, Ill keep doing what Ive done for the last 23 years: Sit down, think, and write. Not because I have to, but because I still can.
Do your office, inbox, and calendar feel like a ghost town on Friday afternoons? Youre not alone.
Im a labor economist who studies how technology and organizational change affect productivity and well-being. In a study published in an August 2025 working paper, I found that the way people allocate their time to work has changed profoundly since the COVID-19 pandemic began.
For example, among professionals in occupations that can be done remotely, 35% to 40% worked remotely on Thursdays and Fridays in 2024, compared with only 15% in 2019. On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays, nearly 30% worked remotely, versus 10% to 15% five years earlier.
And white-collar employees have also become more likely to log off from work early on Fridays. Theyre starting the weekend sooner than before the pandemic, whether while working at an office or remotely as the workweek comes to a close. Why is that happening? I suspect that remote work has diluted the barrier between the workweek and the weekendespecially when employees arent working at the office.
The changing rhythm of work
The American Time Use Survey, which the U.S. Labor Departments Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts annually, asks thousands of Americans to recount how they spent the previous day, minute by minute. It tracks how long they spend working, commuting, doing housework, and caregiving.
Because these diaries cover both weekdays and weekends, and include information about whether respondents could work remotely, this survey offers the most detailed picture available of how the rhythms of work and life are changing. This data also allows me to see where people conduct each activity, making it possible to estimate the share of time American professionals spend working from home.
When I examined how the typical workday changed between 2019 and 2024, I saw dramatic shifts in where, when, and how people worked throughout that period.
Millions of professionals who had never worked remotely suddenly did so full time at the height of the pandemic. Hybrid arrangements have since become common; many employees spend two or three days a week at home and the rest in the office.
I found another change: From 2019 to 2024, the average number of minutes worked on Fridays fell by about 90 minutes in jobs that can be done from home. That change accounts for other factors, such as a professionals age, education, and occupation.
The decline for employees with jobs that are harder to do remotely was much smaller.
Even if you just look at the raw data, U.S. employees with the potential to work remotely were working about 7 hours per weekday on average in 2024, down about 13 minutes from 2019. These averages mask substantial variation between those with jobs that can more easily be done remotely and those who must report to the office most of the time.
For example, among workers in the more remote-intensive jobs, they spent 7 hours, 6 minutes working on Fridays in 2024, but 8 hours, 24 minutes in 2019.
That means I found, looking at the raw data, that Americans were working 78 fewer minutes on Fridays in 2024 than five years earlier. And controlling for other factors (e.g., demographics), this is actually an even larger 90-minute difference for employees who can do their jobs remotely.
In contrast, those employees were working longer hours on Wednesdays. They worked 8 hours, 24 minutes on Wednesdays in 2024, half an hour more than the 7 hours, 54 minutes logged on that day of the week in 2019. Clearly, theres a shift from some Friday hours, with employees making up the bulk of the difference on other weekdays.
Fridays have long been a little different
Although employees are shifting some of this skipped work time to other days of the week, most of the reductionwhether at the office or at homehas gone to leisure.
To be sure, Fridays have always been a little different than other weekdays. Many bosses allowed their staff to dress more casually on Fridays and permitted people to depart early, long before the pandemic began. But the ability to work remotely has evidently amplified that tendency.
This informal easing into the weekend, once confined to office norms, can be a morale booster. But as it has expanded, its become more individualized through remote and hybrid arrangements.
Those workers in remote-intensive occupations who are single, young, or male reduced their working hours across the board the most, relative to 2019, although their time on the job increased a bit in 2024.
The benefits and limits of flexibility
There are a few causal studies on the effects of remote work on productivity and well-being in the workplace, including some in which I participated. A general takeaway is that people tend to spend less time collaborating and more time on independent tasks when they work remotely.
Thats fine for some professions, but in roles that depend on frequent coordination, that pattern can complicate communication or weaken team cohesion. Colocationbeing physically present with your colleaguesdoes matter for some types of tasks.
But even if productivity doesnt necessarily suffer, every hour of unscheduled, independent work can be an hour not spent in coordinated effort with colleagues. That means what happens when people clock out or log off early on a Fridaywhether at home or at their officedepends on the nature of their work.
In occupations that require continuous handoffssuch as journalism, healthcare, or customer servicestaggered schedules can actually improve efficiency by spreading coverage across more hours in the day.
But for employees in project-based or collaborative roles that depend on overlapping hours for brainstorming, review, or decision-making, uneven schedules can create friction. When colleagues are rarely online at the same time, small delays can compound and slow collective progress.
The problem arises when flexible work becomes so individualized that it erodes shared rhythms altogether. The time-use data I analyzed suggests that remote-capable employees now spread their work more unevenly across the week, with less overlap in real time.
Eventually, that can make it harder to sustain the informal interactions and team cohesion that once happened organically when everyone left the office together at the nd of the week. As some of my other research has shown, that also can reduce job satisfaction and increase turnover in jobs requiring greater coordination.
The future of work
To be sure, allowing employees to do remote work and have some scheduling flexibility on any day of the week isnt necessarily bad for business.
The benefitsin terms of work-life balance, autonomy, recruitment, and reducing turnovercan be very real.
Flexible and remote arrangements expand the pool of potential applicants by freeing employers from strict geographic limits. A company based in Chicago can now hire a software engineer in Boise or a designer in Atlanta without requiring relocation.
This wider reach increases the supply of qualified candidates. It canparticularly in jobs requiring more coordinationalso improve retention by allowing employees to adjust their work schedules around family or personal needs rather than having to choose between relocating or quitting.
Whats more, many women who might have had to exit the labor force altogether when they became parents have been able to remain employed, at least on a part-time basis.
But in my view, the erosion of Fridays may go beyond what began as an informal traditionleaving the office early before the weekend begins. It is part of a broader shift toward individualized schedules that expand autonomy but reduce shared time for coordination.
Christos Makridis is an associate research professor of information systems at Arizona State University, Institute for Humane Studies.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Inspired by the ongoing auction of Bob Ross paintings to raise money for public television, Last Week Tonight With John Oliver is putting some of its own TV artifacts up for auction for a good cause.
Host John Oliver dedicated the close of Sunday’s season finale to local public television, which is facing an unprecedented crisis. Federal budget cuts could by next year close as many as 115 public television and radio stations in the U.S. serving 43 million Americans, according to the Public Media Bridge Fund, a philanthropic initiative.
“These stations can fill a vital community role,” Oliver said during Sunday’s show.
[Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com]
Bob Ross Inc. said in October that it was putting 30 paintings by the late artist up for auction to pay for public station licensing fees. The first three paintings sold last week in Los Angeles for more than $600,000 total.
Oliver said Last Week Tonight originally tried bidding on one of the recently auctioned Ross paintings in hopes of flipping it to raise even more money for public television.
“Sadly, those prices were outside of our budget,” Oliver said. So instead, the show is tapping its own archives with the auction site johnoliversjunk.com.
[Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com]
Items like the giant Reese’s mug that made its first appearance during a 2017 episode about net neutrality are now up for auction alongside Oliver’s “on-screen wife,” Mrs. Cabbage, and a quintet of bad wax replicas of presidents originally purchased by the show from the now-closed Hall of Presidents and First Ladies in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. All the proceeds from the auctions will go to the Public Media Bridge Fund.
[Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com]
Though Last Week Tonight didn’t have the budget to drop six figures on an original Bob Ross painting at last week’s auction, Bob Ross Inc. did donate one to Oliver’s auction. “Cabin at Sunset” was created during an 1987 episode of Ross’s PBS show The Joy of Painting, and it’s presently the first item shown on Oliver’s auction site. The painting currently has a bid of more than a million dollars.
The top bid for a sculpture titled “LBJ’s Balls” is over $25,000, and the top bid for a trip to New York City to meet Oliver is higher than $50,000 at the time of this writing. So far, the leading bid to appear in a photo over Oliver’s shoulder during a future episode has just passed $100,000 after 45 bids.
[Screenshot: johnoliversjunk.com]
The show found some lower-priced ways to raise money, too, like signed merchandise from the Moon Mammoths, the minor league baseball team Last Week Tonight temporarily rebranded in July, and a Mr. Bean DVD signed by Joel McHale.
The auction closes on November 24. Oliver also promoted Adopt A Station, a nonprofit for people who want to help out and donate to public media stations but aren’t able to participate in his auction.
Trump administration budget cuts meant an end to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which said in August that it is winding down operations. The Public Media Bridge Fund says the end of CPB funding will destabilize the public media system. It’s seeking to raise $100 million over two years to help the most at-risk communities.
The influence of the AI industry is becoming a major topic in New Yorks 12th congressional district, where a crowded Democratic primary packed with millennial and Gen Z candidates is heating up. The seat represents one of the wealthiest communities in the country — and is a liberal stronghold — so whoever wins could eventually become a major player in the fight to limit the most noxious impacts of large language model (LLM) technology.
On Tuesday, Cameron Kasky, a political activist and Parkland shooting survivor who lives in the district (which includes the Upper West Side and Upper East Side) announced he was running. His campaign is making fighting the AI oligarchs a pivotal focus, adapting the rally cry used by progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for the ChatGPT age.
Generative AI is undoubtedly one of the most societally damaging innovations that humanity has ever created, and people do not understand the toll it will be taking on us, says Kaskys new campaign site. This damage includes the fresh water supplies it is depleting, a media literacy crisis that has already gotten out of control in this country over recent years, and the degree to which children are leaning on AI for therapy, companionship, and more — at the cost of their critical thinking skills and cognitive development.
Kasky says his legislative priorities will include holding AI companies accountable for their environmental impact, preventing mass layoffs, and better regulating the influence of tech companies on child safety. I have no sympathy for AI, and no tolerance for what it has done to our population. It will only get worse if we do not get in the way as aggressively as possible, he says.
Hes not the only person planning to take on AI in the primary. Alex Bores, a Palantir alum who has proposed state legislation the RAISE Act that would rein in the industry, has also made clear that one of his focuses would be regulating artificial intelligence.
Earlier this week, he was targeted by ads funded by Leading the Future, a pro-AI super PAC funded by OpenAI executive Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz thats intent on blunting the influence of tech critics in the upcoming congressional primaries. The group has called Bores’ legislation a clear example of the patchwork, uninformed, and bureaucratic state laws that would slow American progress and open the door for China to win the global race for AI leadership. Bores, in turn, has started fundraising off the ads.
This AI super PAC’s first target? Me, said Bores in a tweet. Why? They’re scared of leaders who understand their business regulating their business. They want unchecked power at your expenseand I’m the guy standing in their way.
It is a crowded race, with about ten people running for the Democratic nomination in total. Most of the other candidates, who include Nadler favorite Micah Lasher, community organizer Liam Elkind, and attorney Jami Floyd, have yet to issue strong positions on artificial intelligence but that could change.
Meanwhile, Kennedy family heir and social media provocateur Jack Schlossberg, who also announced his campaign this month, has at least some thoughts on the tech. Last year, he tweeted his reflections: Question about AI Is it sexual ? Were are ALL sexual beings, thats just a fact. If AI is non-sexual, does that limit its potential ? or make it unstoppable ?
Across the country, data center demand and construction have been skyrocketing throughout 2025.
And so has local opposition to those projects.
From Indiana (where a developer withdrew its application to build a data center on more than 700 acres of farmland after local opposition) to Georgia (where now at least eight municipalities have passed moratoriums on data center development), residents and politicians are pushing back against the water- and energy-hungry sites.
Between late March through June of this year alone, 20 data center projects, representing about $98 billion in investments, were blocked or delayed in the United States, according to a new report from Data Center Watch, a project from the AI security and intelligence firm 10a Labs.
That number is higher than all of the data center disruptions the research group had tracked in the two years prior to its most recent report.
A turning point against data centers
Data Center Watch began keeping tabs on this trend in 2023, and released its first report earlier this year, covering 2023 through the first quarter of 2025. In that time frame, 16 projects, worth $64 billion, were blocked or delayed.
Though a project may be cancelled for myriad reasons, these were cases where local opposition was reported to have played some role in the decision, says Miquel Vila, an analyst at the Data Center Watch project.
In the second quarter of 2025, that opposition surged 125%. We were expecting a few more cases, Vila says of Q2, but not 20.
One important caveat, Vila notes, is that the data center industry is booming; it makes sense that opposition would, too. But even accounting for record high construction spend, he sees these recent numbers as a turning point in the trend.
What’s wrong with data centers?
Tech giants are building out data centers at a rapid pace to meet the enormous power needs of artificial intelligence (AI).
But data centers have faced local criticism because of the resources they consume, like water (which is especially a concern in scarce regions like Arizona) and energy (which has been linked to rising electricity prices across the country.)
Along with water use and utility prices, communities have also taken issue with noise, landmark preservation, and transparency, Vila addslike if it isnt clear who the end user of a data center will be.
Data Center Watch has found 188 community groups that have formed to fight data center projects. Between March and June alone, 53 active groups across 17 states were targeting 30 data center projects.
Amid that pushback, lawmakers have also been reconsidering their regions tax subsidies to data centers, as well as regulations around zoning, and the projects environmental impacts.
That community opposition is even causing some lawmakers to change their regulations or hold off on building data centers in the future.
Local opposition is having an impact in the regulatory landscape of data centers, Vila says.
Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy for the industry group Data Center Coalition, said in a statement that it continues to see “significant interest” across the country for “responsible data center projects,” and said such projects create jobs, economic investment, and local tax revenue.
He added that the coalition’s members are committed to community engagement, stakeholder education, and to working with policymakers and regulatory bodies.
“Data centers are also committed to being responsible and responsive neighbors in the communities where they operate,” Diorio said.
Data centers and politics
Data center opposition has become a talking point in recent political races.
In Virginiathe biggest data center market in the worldGovernor-elect Abigail Spanberger campaigned in part on making sure data centers pay their fair share, and on addressing rising electricity prices.
In Georgia, Peter Hubbardwho was elected to the states Public Service Commission, which regulates its utilitieshas specifically highlighted how data centers can drive up peoples energy bills. Georgia is increasingly becoming a data center hotbed, and is in fact the second-largest such market in the world.
But while both those politicians are Democrats, data center opposition is a bipartisan issue, Data Center Watch found. Both blue and red states are rethinking incentives to developers or tightening their rules around such projects.
That tracks with other research about data center support: a recent Heatmap poll found that only 44% of Americans would welcome a data center near them.
Looking ahead
Data Center Watch plans to keep an eye on project delays and cancellations going forward.
Already, it seems the trend is continuing into Q3: In one prominent example, Amazons proposed Project Blue data center, was rejected by Tucson, Arizonas town council in August.
(In Data Center Watchs latest report, two of the 20 affected projects were from Amazon: one in Becker, Minnesota, which was suspended as lawmakers reconsidered tax incentives, and one in King George, Virginia, which was delayed because of legal issues and resident pushback.)
Vila expects data center opposition to keep growingand to increasingly become a part of project calculations.
Before, local opposition was more of an anecdotal possibility, he says. Now, its becoming a core feature of development . . . in the same way issues like land, energy, and water are taken into account.
Pigs famously have thick skin, and Donald Trump does not. Its just one of myriad distinctions between the cloven-hoofed barnyard animal and Americas 47th president.
Theres a good reason, however, why many social media users are currently addressing Trump as Piggy, and sharing crude, AI-assisted images of him in porcine form. Rest assured, he paved his own pathway to hog heaven.
On Monday, a clip of Trump addressing reporters aboard Air Force One went viral. It begins with reporter Jennifer Jacobs pressing Trump about the eternally unfurling Epstein scandal. The president seems as though hed rather not answer the questionat least, thats how it comes across when he admonishes Jacobs: Quiet, Piggy.
While leaders in most professions might be disciplined or even fired for such a transgression, Trump has proven uniquely immune to formal consequences for violating norms. But he is in no way immune to informal consequences, which is why the internet has already repurposed Quiet, Piggy into a memetic insult against Trump.
Bluesky users have started quote-tweeting Trumps latest TruthSocial dispatches with the new catchphrase, and theyre doing the same for media appearances from Trumpian underlings like House Speaker Mike Johnson and U.S. Representative Nancy Mace.
Quiet, Piggy.— Kevin M. Kruse (@kevinmkruse.bsky.social) 2025-11-18T13:30:52.321Z
Quiet Piggy. — Amanda Weaver (@amandaweavernovels.com) 2025-11-18T16:50:48.163Z
Over on X, Governor Gavin Newsom is among the many users adding a body-shaming component to the catchphrase, tweeting unflattering photos of the president along with it.
Quiet, piggy. pic.twitter.com/RIKsI4iDjV— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) November 18, 2025
Quiet, piggy. pic.twitter.com/3uOoRnjGpX— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) November 18, 2025
Quiet, piggy pic.twitter.com/CKORVzGGpG— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) November 18, 2025
Meanwhile, some TikTok users are also posting unflattering images of the president to accompany the insult, and others are posting AI-generated images of the president, alternately as Miss Piggy or as himself yelling at Miss Piggy.
If social media users seem especially eager to weaponize Quiet, Piggy by reflecting it back at the president, its likely because of how well this outburst fits in with Trumps previous behavior.
Trump has a documented history of calling women like Rosie ODonnell and former Miss Universe Alicia Machado pigsalong with dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. He also has a more recent and pointed history of insulting and berating journalists.
Just after the 2016 election, 60 Minutes journalist Lesley Stahl reportedly said that Trump told her the reason he regularly bashes reporters is to demean and discredit them so that the public will not believe negative stories about him.
And Trump continued to insult journalists in his tone-setting first post-election press conference, refusing to take a question from CNN reporter Jim Acosta and telling him: You are fake news.
Over the course of his initial term, Trump would escalate attacks on press that seemed to be insufficiently friendly, deeming them the enemy of the people. He seemed to harbor a special animosity, though, toward journalists who happened to be women. In one typically fiery exchange with CNNs Abby Phillip in 2018, for instance, Trump responded to Phillips question about then-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller by saying: What a stupid question that is. What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.
In his second term, Trump appears even more committed to attacking reporters for asking questions hed prefer not rceive. He regularly refuses to answer questions, tells reporters Youre not supposed to be asking that, or calls them obnoxious and very evil for asking anyway. Indeed, the whole TACO Trump attack over the summer, which accused the president of Always Chickening Out on tariffs, would likely not have blown up to the level it did had Trump not told a reporter who asked him about it: Dont ever say what you said.
Still, despite Trump having been extra combative with reporters all year, he has lately seemed even more prickly with an uptick in questions about his connection to Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump on Epstein Files: I dont want to talk about it because fake news like youyoure a terrible reporterfake news like you just keeps bringing up to deflect from the tremendous success of The Trump Admin pic.twitter.com/rZjobTujCN— Acyn (@Acyn) November 16, 2025
Trump: Will you let me finish? You are the worst. Youre with Bloomberg right? You are the worst. I dont know why they even have you. pic.twitter.com/mTmZ77KTYv— Acyn (@Acyn) November 17, 2025
When an ABC reporter asked Trump about the Epstein files on Tuesday, during the course of this writing, Trump responded by saying, I think the license should be taken away from ABC, and urging FCC chairman Brendan Carr to look at that.
As heated as Trump can get when asked about this issue, though, Quiet, Piggy stands out as an exceedingly juvenile and degrading insult. Many social media users have been speculating about why the schoolyard name-calling went unchallenged in the moment; why Jacobss fellow reporters didnt make sure her question got answered or demand an apology on her behalf.
Perhaps its the absence of any heroes aboard Air Force One, though, that has inspired social media users to push back on Trumps hogwash themselves.
Microsoft said Tuesday it is partnering with artificial intelligence company Anthropic and chipmaker Nvidia as part of a cloud infrastructure deal that moves the software giant further away from its longtime alliance with OpenAI.
Anthropic, maker of the chatbot Claude that competes with OpenAI’s ChatGPT, said it is committed to buying $30 billion in computing capacity from Microsoft’s Azure cloud computing platform.
As part of the partnership, Nvidia will also invest up to $10 billion in Anthropic, and Microsoft will invest up to $5 billion in the San Francisco-based startup.
The joint announcements by CEOs Dario Amodei of Anthropic, Satya Nadella of Microsoft, and Jensen Huang of Nvidia came just ahead of the opening of Microsoft’s annual Ignite developer conference.
This is all about deepening our commitment to bringing the best infrastructure, model choice and applications to our customers, Nadella said on a video call with the other two executives, adding that it builds on the critical partnership Microsoft still has with OpenAI.
Microsoft was, until earlier this year, the exclusive cloud provider for OpenAI and made the technology behind ChatGPT the foundation for its own AI assistant, Copilot. But the two companies moved farther apart and their business agreements were amended as OpenAI increasingly sought to secure its own cloud capacity through big deals with Oracle, SoftBank, and other data center developers and chipmakers.
Asked in September if OpenAI could do more with those new computing partnerships than it could with Microsoft, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman told The Associated Press his company was severely limited for the value we can offer to people.
At the same time, Microsoft holds a roughly 27% stake in the new for-profit corporation that OpenAI, founded as a nonprofit, is forming to advance its commercial ambitions as the world’s most valuable startup.
Anthropic, founded by ex-OpenAI leaders in 2021, said Claude will now be the only frontier model available to customers of the three biggest cloud computing providers: Amazon, which remains Anthropic’s primary cloud provider, and Google and Microsoft.
AI products like Claude and ChatGPT take huge amounts of energy and computing power to build and operate, and neither OpenAI nor Anthropic is yet turning a profit. As part of the deal, Nvidia said Anthropic will have access to up to a gigawatt of capacity from its specialized AI chips.
Huang said he’s admired the work of Anthropic and Dario for a long time, and this is the first time we are going to deeply partner with Anthropic to accelerate Claude.
Matt O’Brien, AP technology writer
National Public Radio will receive approximately $36 million in grant money to operate the nations public radio interconnection system under the terms of a court settlement with the federal government’s steward of funding for public broadcasting stations.
The settlement, announced late Monday, partially resolves a legal dispute in which NPR accused the Corporation for Public Broadcasting of bowing to pressure from President Donald Trump to cut off its funding.
On March 25, Trump said at a news conference that he would love to defund NPR and PBS because he believes they are biased in favor of Democrats.
NPR accused the CPB of violating its First Amendment free speech rights when it moved to cut off its access to grant money appropriated by Congress. NPR also claims Trump, a Republican, wants to punish it for the content of its journalism.
On April 2, the CPBs board initially approved a three-year, roughly $36 million extension of a grant for NPR to operate the interconnection satellite system for public radio. NPR has been operating and managing the Public Radio Satellite System since 1985.
But the CPB reversed course under mounting pressure from the Trump administration, according to NPR. The agency redirected federal interconnection funds away from NPR to an entity that didnt exist and wasnt statutorily authorized to receive it, NPR says.
CPB attorneys denied that the agency retaliated against NPR to appease Trump. They had argued that NPRs claims are factually and legally meritless.
On May 1, Trump issued an executive order that called for federal agencies to stop funding for NPR and PBS. The settlement doesnt end a lawsuit in which NPR seeks to block any implementation or enforcement of Trump’s executive order. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss is scheduled to preside over another hearing for the case on Dec. 4.
The settlement says NPR and CPB agree that the executive order is unconstitutional and that CPB won’t enforce it unless a court orders it to do so.
Katherine Maher, NPR’s president and CEO, said the settlement is a victory for editorial independence and a step toward upholding the First Amendment rights of NPR and the public media system.”
Patricia Harrison, the corporations CEO, said in a statement that the settlement marks an important moment for public media.
Michael Kunzelman, Associated Press
