I want to talk about something that I feel like maybe is a little controversial, content creator Jaclyn Hill said in a video posted earlier this week.
The OG beauty influencer got her start on YouTube well over a decade ago. She’s since grown across different social media channels, including Instagram and TikTok, where she has 8.5 million and 1.2 million followers, respectively.
In the video, which has since racked up over 3.5-million views, she opens up about how she’s been struggling to get views on TikTok and feels like she’s running through mud to connect with her followers. When you have a million followers, but youre getting 30,000 views, this is just not the way it used to be, she said.
She was rightthe video proved controversial. Fans instantly took to the comments to push back at Jaclyn, saying that the influencer was being out of touch. One user commented: Saying Im burnt out from posting Sephora hauls and grwms to employed people is insane.
Another wrote: Babe. That sweatshirt is $140. That’s my entire weekly grocery budget that we can afford for our entire family.
Amid the backlash, an important point has been somewhat lost. Hill was taking issue with low views, a sign that her content is not being shown to those who have chosen to follow her. She was not raising the issue of low engagement, which would have been a sign that her followers were no longer enjoying her content.
Instead, Hill has inadvertently found herself the newest face of a longstanding conversation around influencer fatigue. These feelings have been bubbling for a few years now and every few months resurface in reaction to one viral video or another.
Jacyln, youre rich, and you won, one creator, @daadisnacks, said in response to her video. Im sorry if people dont want to be drowned in overconsumption by influencers when they cant afford groceries or housing.
Fast Company has reached out to Hill for comment.
This sums up the general sentiment online, as internet users are increasingly fed up with inescapable ads and being sold to 24/7. In many cases, people arent buying what influencers are selling, namely luxury items and extravagant lifestyles that feel overwhelmingly out of touch with most Americans reality.
Such conspicuous consumption has grown somewhat distasteful at a time when nearly half of Americans are struggling to afford rent and groceries. Content creators on the whole are an easy target, especially when they are seen to be complaining to the audience that gave them their platform in the first place.
Its worth reiterating, Hills issue was directed at the algorithm not her followersa complaint that has been echoed by other influencers on the platform over the years. As opposed to platforms like Instagram, where users would have to actively follow accounts to see influencer posts in their feeds, TikTok relies on an algorithm that shows users posts on their For You page based on what their behavior suggests they might like.
Let’s say a group of viewers responds positively to a video, either by sharing the video or watching it in full, TikTok then shows it to more people who it thinks share similar interests. That same process then repeats itself, until the video goes ultimately viral.
But if the first group of viewers the video is shown to only watches a few seconds before scrolling on, it is then shown to fewer users, limiting its potential reach.
If viewers are no longer interested in watching overconsumption from influencers, the algorithm will stop pushing it out.
For Hill, she put the question to her followers as to what they want to see instead. Addressing the backlash in a follow up video, she said: My ears are open, Im listening.
On December 11, 2015, OpenAI arrived on the scene with a bang. Announced on the penultimate day of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, an academic confab held in Montreals Palais des Congrs by Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and others, the organization had been in the planning for months (an infamous July 2015 meeting at the Rosewood Sand Hill Hotel brought on board many of OpenAIs key early staffers).
But when it went public with an announcement and blog post, the community reacted with surprise. This is just absolutely wonderful news, and I really feel like we are watching history in the making, wrote Sebastien Bubeck, then a researcher at Microsoft, and since October 2024, an OpenAI employee. The company was well-funded and professed to have clear goals: to advance digital intelligence in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.
Bubeck had little idea how prescient his words were. Even the wildest predictions of its founders on that day in 2015 likely couldnt have imagined how much ChatGPT would change the worldand OpenAIs fortunes. But now that its a decade old, the main question its investors, its employees, and all of us relying on its success to keep the stock market healthy are asking is: Where will it be in another 10-years time?
Ten years ago, OpenAI started with a fairly legitimate scientific question and had a social conscious focus, says Catherine Flick, an AI ethicist at the University of Staffordshire. Flick points out that its founding form was a complicated nonprofit organization that was always going to be difficult to addressand caused plenty of consternation, including the2023 ousting of its CEO, Altman.
But that founding ideal has changed significantly, she says. Now we have a for-profit company that has completely shared any responsibility for social benefit and has basically embraced that growth at all costs kind of mantra, says Flick. The reason? OpenAI is at the vanguard of the generative AI revolution, and theres money to be made.
One key area that is likely to change OpenAI is the advent of superintelligence, a contested idea that the AI systems the company and its competitors are developing will at some point surpass human capabilities in every aspect. Those working closest to the AI models in frontier labs seem convinced of the idea that this will happenbut outsiders question whether thats simply a case of being too close to the Kool-Aid than superior knowledge as a result of seeing behind the scenes.
Nevertheless, those at the top of the company are thinking about the future impact of AI a decade out. Earlier this year, OpenAI CEO Altman predicted that by 2035, college graduates if they still go to college at all, could very well be leaving on a mission to explore the solar system on a spaceship in some completely new, exciting, super well-paid, super interesting job. “OpenAI says that with today’s level of understanding, obviously nobody should deploy superintelligencebut also that their top priority is to build this, says Steven Adler, a fellow at the Roots of Progress Institute, who spent nearly four years between 2020 and 2024 at OpenAI, working in its safety research team. Its a concerning combination of beliefs, he adds.
Adler hopes Open AIs plans for the future can remain independent and impartial from its for-profit interestssomething they are required to do Having overlapping membership of the for-profit and not-for-profit boards is a natural conflict, he believes. But more fundamentally, that will be challenging in part because of the competition that the company faces from other AI labs working at the frontier of the technology. “We all need to find ways to stop the AI industry’s race dynamicswhich OpenAI has long warned aboutfrom driving us off a cliff.
Theres still some who think it could drive off that cliff. In 10-years, time, I fully expect OpenAI to have either completely imploded with all of its assets, sold off to some sort of private equity firm or similar, or have been snatched up by some other company and acquired in some way, Flick says.
OpenAIs success will determine the AI industrys future, as well as that of the broader economy. Given its centrality to AI, OpenAIs success or failure and the rate of its process ultimately has major ramifications on the broader consumer internet and AI hyperscaler spaces, Ross Sandler, managing director and senior internet research analyst at Barclays, wrote in a recent research note.
At present,OpenAI is sitting pretty, reckons Sandler, standing around six to 12 months ahead of its competitors in most areasthough the biggest firms like Google are starting to catch up with the release of its latest models like Gemini 3. Barclays estimates that by 2030, its revenue could be $200 billion, up from an estimated $13 billion this year, with around 44% of that coming from ChatGPT.Sandler also points out that OpenAI needs only convert a low single-digit proportion of its users in order to meet its revenue targets at present. That puts it well below other subscription apps, including Tinder, Spotify, and Duolingo.
On one hand, Barclays research suggests that OpenAI is sitting pretty in its position at present. Weve found over the years that once habits are established, its hard for followers to dislodge the leader in a space, wrote Sandler. Yet Sandler also says that Google is the potentially huge spoiler in the midst for the next decade. For now, OpenAI is sitting pretty
Augustus Doricko, founder and CEO of cloud-seeding startup Rainmaker, surveys the sky from a sunbaked hillside 5 miles from Utahs Great Salt Lake. On this balmy Sunday afternoon in late September, the lake is calm, but its serenity belies a potentially catastrophic problem: The Great Salt Lake is shrinkingand is at risk of disappearing altogether.
At its peak 40 years ago, the lake covered 2,300 square miles; today, more than 800 square miles of lake bed are exposed. As more of the lake dries, scientists warn that dust storms made up of toxic heavy metals could plague the Salt Lake Valley, home to 1.2 million people, and beyond.
Rainmakers futuristic technology could solve the states water woes by harnessing nature. The startup flies drones into the troposphere, where they probe for precipitation-friendly conditions before releasing silver iodide particles that seed rain and snow.
The weather today is too idyllic for umbrellas. But Dorickos mind, as usual, is in the clouds. Theres hella-supercooled liquid water today between six and nine thousand feet, he says. So basically, we gotta start blasting.
With just weeks to go before the start of prime cloud-seeding seasonsilver iodide is more effective in colder temperatures, where it can produce snowa dozen Rainmaker drone operator trainees have assembled on this pasture to log flight time before relocating to the Bear River Basin, which feeds the lake.
As they compare notes, Doricko, in cowboy boots, winds his way between dried cow dung and yellow rabbitbrush to reach his startups signature innovation, resting in the dirt: a custom-built, 3-foot-by-3-foot quadcopter drone dubbed Elijah.
In a small red tent nearby, a drone operator huddles over a laptop that serves as the command center. Elijah isnt registering its coordinates, but after a teammate reorients its antennas, it blinks to life on the laptop screens topographical map. The operator checks for nearby air traffic before configuring a set of instructions.
Were going to take off, he calls out. Start mission. Theres a dull mechanical buzz. A dozen pairs of eyes squint upward as Elijah rises into the blue.
Doricko lights an American Spirit and leans against the pasture fence, brushing his unruly mullet out of his face. He looks the part of frontier hotshot. But in practice, hes trying to impose an unprecedented degree of scientific discipline on an industry that operates like the Wild West.
Cloud seeding, which first emerged in experimental form in the 1940s, has traditionally been conducted by small airplanes that use flares to release particles like silver iodide or salt. Longtime operators attest to cloud seedings benefits, but they have a hard time proving the specific efficacy of each mission.
Rainmaker is betting that its drones will be cheaper to fly and more precise, allowing the company to conduct operations at greater scale and with greater assurance of impact. Doricko has $31 million in venture capital riding on that conviction.
The 25-year-old founded Rainmaker in 2023 after dropping out of UC Berkeley, where he had been studying physics. He won a Thiel Fellowship the next year and now has the backing of investors like Naval Ravikant, Chris Saccas Lowercarbon Capital, and Michael Gibsons 1517 Fund, as well as 120 employees and a growing list of customers, including state governments and farming associations.
Though Rainmaker has piloted its tech across the U.S. and even Argentina, it faces its biggest test this winter: demonstrating that it can reliably use Elijah to generate rain and snow, forestalling disaster at the Great Salt Lake. At the same time, Doricko needs to persuade skeptics that cloud seeding is safe and legitimate.
Surmounting these obstacles is more than a business imperative for Doricko, who quotes the Bible and Elon Musk in the same breath. He was baptized in Texas two days before his twenty-first birthday, after turning away from a hedonistic Berkeley lifestyle that he looks back on with dismay.
Doricko has taken to heart the first chapter of Genesis, in which God blesses humanity, commanding that it replenish the earth, and subdue it, while granting people dominion over the seas, the air, and other living creatures.
My deepest, heartfelt core motivation is to serve God, he says. And I think the best way to do that is to put water on the ground for people and ecosystems and industries in need. While not every member of the Rainmaker team shares his faith, they share his purpose, which he distills as the betterment of our country and the world.
Dorickos outspoken embrace of Christianity, patriotism, and homegrown technology has made him one of the most prominent figures in a movement thats centered in El Segundo, California. Over the past three years, the Los Angeles suburb, known for its connection to the aerospace industry, has become a hub for founders tackling nuclear energy, autonomous defense systems, domestic manufacturing, and moremany with a sense of religious mission.
Peoples work and life has been devoid of meaning and consequence, Doricko opined on a recent podcast, joined by several of his Gundo founder friends. He considers working in crypto, for example, to be dishonorable.
The Gundo bro paragons punctuate their noble work with a good time: Picture iron-pumping, beach bonfires, warehouse parties, and a steady stream of Celsius and Zyn. Reindustrialization and boozin, Doricko has joked of the scene. The areas founders have attracted media attention and the backing of so-called tech right investors like Peter Thiel and Katherine Boyle, who is the cofounder of Andreessen Horowitzs American Dynamism practice.
Doricko, though, has also been tied to more extreme voices on the right. Fast Company uncovered a tweet that he sent in 2020, while still at Berkeley, to white nationalist and far-right influencer Nick Fuentes, requesting to start a student chapter of Fuentess then-nascent organization, America First. Other publications have linked Doricko to a church in Santa Clarita, California thats part of a denomination led by Christian nationalist Doug Wilson.
Doricko says this reporting paints an incomplete portrait of who he is and what he believes. Im not a white nationalist, he says, adding that he didnt know the full extent of Fuentess views in 2020 and that the campus chapter never came together. He has attended the Santa Clarita church less than 10 times in the past, he acknowledges, but today considers an Eastern Orthodox congregation his church home.
At the same time, Doricko has become the target of conspiracy theorists, who accuse Rainmaker of causing the devastating July fourth flooding in Texas. The company had been working in Texas two days prior, but cloud seeding isnt capable of producing anywhere near as much rain as inundated the Guadalupe River.
That hasnt stopped rumors from proliferating online: Doricko and Rainmaker are, at last, proof that shadowy deep state forces control the weather. By mid-September, cloud-seeding bans had been proposed by primarily Republican lawmakers in 32 states. (Florida passed a ban in April that went into effect this fall.) After receiving death threats over the summer, Doricko now travels with security.
Caught between accusations that cloud seeding is too powerful and doubts that it can ever be effective, Rainmaker s charting a narrow path. Doricko acknowledges that navigating the political crosscurrents while building a startup and maturing his faith has taken a toll.
Two years ago, in a widely viewed interview with tech-world chronicler John Coogan, Doricko was jacked and tanned, a high-wattage presence at ease in his role as Gundo super-connector, as Coogan describes him. These days, Doricko shuttles between cold warehouses on early-morning flights. In more recent interviews, shadows mark his face, and there is a wary fatigue to his posture.
On the one hand, I get to rely on God, which definitely hardens and strengthens me, he says. On the other hand, because the stakes are cosmic, when I fail, it definitely feels like Im taking a step towards eternal hellfire.
Before Elijah, there were 62 prototype quadcopters, all of which have been retired. To perform effectively, Rainmakers drones must fly far higher into the atmosphere than off-the-shelf modelsup to 15,000 feetto reach the clouds that are the best candidates for seeding. Thats the easy part.
The drones have to be able to fly in the most severe icing conditions, because the more cooled liquid in the atmosphere, the more water we can bring down, Doricko says as we walk through the startups bare-bones Utah warehouse, home to failed experiments, custom radar systems bound for mountaintops, and a Cat Wars calendar. But the more cooled liquid is in the atmosphere, the more dangerous it is for any aircraft.
The breakthrough came in the form of an innovative deicing system. Doricko picks up a black drone propeller, its aerodynamic wing lined with what looks like a yellow maze. You take battery power, basically, and then you just port it to the propellers, he says. [The resistors] heat up the blades and melt the ice off as it accretes.
The system also doubles as a gauge for how much liquid is in the cloud, a challenging but essential data point for Rainmaker to collect. If you know the [air] temperature and how much power it takes to melt the ice, then you can infer how much liquid is in the cloud based on the rate at which its icing. So, it doubles as this crazy probe.
It took the company more than a year to arrive at Elijah, which has been engineered to withstand winter winds and three kinds of ice (smooth glaze, rough rime, and a combination of the two). In testing, the model successfully flew in 25-meters-per-second winds at 14,999 feet. According to Rainmaker, no other quadcopter can perform in those conditions (fixed-wing drones can manage it but cost at least $2,000 apiece and require a runway). Already, the startup has 75 Elijah drones ready to go.
Thats the hardware. Doricko is also trying to operationalize a new approach to cloud seeding. Before Rainmaker, he founded a startup that monitored groundwater for customers in Texas. At a conference, he learned about cloud seedings attribution problem: Though operators could record precipitation after their flights, they couldnt prove they caused it. A 2017 study suggested that seeding in a zigzag flight pattern would lead to precipitation that fell with an anthropogenic (or human) signature.
What I started with was, okay, if you can now measure where you should be seeding and what the yields are, says Doricko, you can actually scale this technology and sell it. Today, Rainmakers drones move in distinctly human-made flight patterns.
In keeping with Rainmakers disciplined approach, head of software Darrion Vinson is developing what he calls a manufacturing execution system. He wants to turn cloud seeding into a replicable, reliable technology.
Liquid Asset: Rainmaker founder and CEO Augustus Doricko is bringing new ideas to the cloud-seeding industry. [Photo: Ethan Gulley]
He joined Rainmaker in 2024 from Hadrian, an aerospace and defense startup, though he and Doricko originally met at an El Segundo bar: Vinson was reading Robert Caros multivolume biography of Lyndon B. Johnson; the two hit it off talking about infrastructure development in postwar America.
Doricko hopes to one day take Vinsons rain manufacturing model around the world. Demand for new sources of water is growing due to drought, climate change, and groundwater depletion. Doricko envisions working for governments in arid regions like the Middle East as well as clients in breadbasket areas struggling to irrigate crops.
Kaitlyn Suski, Rainmakers head of research, oversees the data that will demonstrate Rainmakers effectiveness. One of Dorickos first hires, Suski initially felt out of place in Gundo culture after spending years in academia studying aerosol cloud interactions and ice nucleation.
They have a bunch of swords and things in the office, she says of her colleagues. At first I was sort of like, ‘Who cares about swords?’ But shes found a way to make it work: Shes added a disco ball to the mix.
Suski will be tracking the companys Great Salt Lake operations this winter in coordination with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, as well as scientists from the University of Utah and Utah State. Thats how cloud seeding is going to get bigger, to have more people trust it and want to invest in it, she says.
Doricko is confident enough in cloud seedings prospects that he has already tasked Suski with researching alternatives to silver iodide. When released into a cloud, silver iodide serves as an ice-nucleating particle, around which water forms ice crystals and then falls to the ground as precipitation.
Silver iodide has been shown to be safe at the concentrations Rainmaker is currently utilizing. But Doricko dreams of operating around the world at a thousand times his current scale.
In nature, a lot of the best ice-nucleating particles are biological things, either bacteria or fungi or things like that, which are more active than silver iodide, Suski says. A more active, organic particle would have the added benefit of performing well in warmer temperatures, extending both Rainmakers active season and the geographies where it could operate.
But conducting this kind of science in public view at a time when science itself is under attack isnt for the faint of heart.
Doricko was watching the July fourth fireworks on Manhattan Beach in California when news about catastrophic floods in Texas started to appear. Rain was pounding the Texas Hill Country, and the Guadalupe River was surging. By the time the storm cleared, 130 people had died.
Doricko remembers thinking that evening that there would likely be questions about Rainmakers role. Two days earlier, the company had worked in Runge, Texas, for the South Texas Weather Modification Association, which represents local farmers. Rainmker released silver iodide into two clouds, then suspended operations when forecasts showed a system moving in. The worst of the flooding took place 125 miles from Runge.
The moment where everything became very surreal was on [July] fifth, when General Mike Flynn tweeted about us, Doricko says.
In a series of posts on X that racked up 2.3 million views, Trumps former national security adviser pointed a finger at Rainmaker and said, Anyone who calls this out as a conspiracy theory can go F themselves. Two weeks later, Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed legislation that would ban weather modification at the federal level.
Doricko wasnt completely surprised by the uproarchemtrail conspiracy theorists have been targeting cloud seeding for years. (Chemtrail conspiracists believe that airplane contrails are harmful chemicals released by the government.)
As insinuations by Flynn and others went viral, Doricko began receiving hundreds of emailed death threats. He was suddenly cast as a Silicon Valley villain bent on playing God and controlling the weather. We realized we had to go defend ourselves in public, he says.
Doricko embarked on a tour of right-wing podcasts, speaking with Dinesh DSouza (as part of a Did the Jews Kill Christ? episode), former Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan (of The Shawn Ryan Show), Tim Pool (Timcast IRL), and others. In conversation after conversation, he took in accusations that cloud seeding is sky terrorism and that he himself is the face of Big Cloud, even Oppenheimer. He calmly walked listeners through the safety of Rainmakers techniques. He explained that the Hill Country storms produced 4 trillion gallons of precipitation, while a successful cloud-seeding mission produces 10 million gallons, at most.
[Illustration: Matt Carlson]
He slipped into jargon only occasionally: You ever heard of aerosol invigoration of convection, bro? We make them bigger, the clouds, he tried to reason with a fellow guest on Timcast IRL. The guest was unmoved.
Meanwhile, Doricko is seeking allies in Washington. In September, he scored a modest victory: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a report that rebutted chemtrail conspiracies and spelled out the difference between cloud seeding and still theoretical climate-engineering techniques like solar radiation modification, which would reflect the suns rays into space.
Im super grateful for the level head that [EPA administrator] Lee Zeldin and the rest of the EPA had on that, Doricko says. Would I have been even more stoked and grateful if they had said that [cloud seeding] was a useful water supply tool? Totally. But I understand, given the political reality, why theyre measured in their discussion of it.
Doricko has worked to avoid being pigeonholed politically. In April, he shared a photo of himself, dressed in Nikes and a tan suit, shaking hands with Bill Clinton. It was a pleasure discussing how cloud seeding can enhance water supplies with #42! he wrote. Four months later, he smiled alongside Governor Gavin Newsom: Grateful to @CAgovernor for investing in El Segundo, California.
Buddying up with the countrys worstthis is Rainmaker, one X user sniped of the Newsom photo.
I love everybody and will work with people that want to give farms and ecosystems the water they need, Doricko replied.
In Rainmaker, conspiracy theorists have found an irresistible target. Not only is the startup releasing particles into the air, its also viewed as an extension of Big Tech, which is reviled in conspiracy circles for its perceived censorship regime.
The irony is that Doricko is sympathetic to his adversaries concerns when it comes to the role of tech platforms as arbiters of speech. I dont feel much attachment at all to Silicon Valley, he says as we drive away from the flight test site in a company pickup truck. I feel very little even to tech. He considers the idea that tech companies from the coasts would lord over middle America to be so wrong.
Dorickos own path through online political spaces has taken several turns. At Berkeley, he was involved in Turning Point USA, the conservative campus organization founded by Charlie Kirk. When the pandemic led to lockdowns and George Floyds death prompted protests, Doricko grew dissatisfied with Turning Points slogans.
It didnt seem like a broad notion that socialism sucks was sufficient to fix the really deeply ingrained cultural and religious issues that we had, he says of his mindset. A friend showed him a few videos of Nick Fuentes; Doricko says he found Fuentess message about Christian revival appealing.
In June 2020, according to the Internet Archive, Doricko was tweeting regularly about BLM, admonishing protesters for taking down statues and rioters for destruction in Santa Monica. Amid these posts, he sent out a pair of tweets to Fuentes and America First Students founder Jaden McNeil about creating a chapter of the organization at Berkeley.
He then announced that he’d been dropped from a conservative student publication on the grounds of suspecting I support #AmericaFirst, he wrote. I thought Id clear the water by stating that I do explicitly. I believe in Christianity, the nuclear family, the American worker and soldier. (Before going deaf in his right ear on a trip to Costa Rica, Doricko hoped to enter the Naval Academy and become an astronaut.)
Fuentes was also active on Twitter at the time. The story of our country is the establishment and the violent mob working together to destroy White, Christian, conservative Americans, he wrote the same week that Doricko tagged him.
In our first conversation about this period, Doricko argues, somewhat defiantly, that he was drawn to America First as an ideal. The phrase America First, insofar as it exemplifies an interest in caring about the U.S.thats where that came from, and thats still what I believe, he says, dressed in a red hoodie, on a video call from Rainmakers Gundo headquarters. I love everybody, he says, as I think our Lord compels us to, desiring their benefit, no matter anything about them.
In a later conversation, Doricko is more reflective. He says that he didnt know about Fuentess white nationalist and antisemitic hstory, including his role as a leader of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
No, dude, I did not know that. I think the only thing that I knew up until 2021 or 2022 [about Charlottesville] was that there was a car accident where someone drove into a bunch of people. When the rally took place in 2017, Doricko adds, I was in high school. I was listening to my dads clips of Ronald Reagan speeches.
He also says the world is a lot more complicated than he thought it was when he was 19 and 20. I hadnt been baptized; I wasnt fully sold on Christendom at that point. I still have more sin in my life than I ought, but I also believe that I have a lot more love in my heart now than I did back then, too.
He says he came to his faith through logic, by evaluating evidence of Jesuss death and resurrection. More recently, hes been drawn to Orthodox Christianitys mysticism.
One thing Doricko doesnt believe in is silence. Even in high school, he says, he was a provocateur. Following the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, he was involved in the nationwide student walkout for school safety. (While other students advocated for gun control, he says his motivation was simply keeping his school safe.)
Why is it that people govern their speech so much? Why is it that people dont say what they think and how they feel? I do not empathize at all with that, he says. The world around us exists only because of the testimony to truth, to faith, to goodness, and the sacrifice of people that came before us, and I dont think people are aware that it could be lost very easily.
The shores of Great Salt Lake State Park are quiet the day after Rainmakers flight training. Children on a field trip have tossed their shoes aside and are wading in the shallow water. But the surrounding shoreline is desolate, a reminder that theres no meaningful recreational constituency fighting to save the ugly duckling of a lake.
Zachary Frankel, executive director of advocacy and research group the Utah Rivers Council, could go on for hours about the problems with water regulation and management in Utah, from the low price that Salt Lake City residents pay for water to the legacy system of agricultural canals that crisscross the states new metropolitan areas. Cloud seeding, he notes, doesnt solve those issues. For years, hes been pushing to restore the lake to 4,200 feet above sea level. At the moment, its at 950 feet.
Cloud seeding is a politically palatable solution, he says as we sit in his office, watching a landscaping crew water the sloping grass lawn behind the building. Its a nice game for Utah politicians to pretend theyre kissing the Great Salt Lake baby, that this is gonna work. But its not.
There are solutions, such as reining in water rights speculation, that would deliver vast quantities of water for pennies on the dollar, but they come with a political cost. The state of Utah doesnt want to regulate its way to saving the lake.
Even at the Utah Division of Water Resources, where the annual cloud-seeding budget ballooned from $350,000 in 2022 to $5 million, officials acknowledge that cloud seeding is no panacea. Can cloud seeding, alone, save the Great Salt Lake? No, were not at that point in terms of the technology, says Jonathan Jennings, a meteorologist with the state water authority. I think where we come in is trying to make sure those high-elevation reservoirs are staying full.
If the reservoirs stay full, the thinking goes, there will be enough water for all parties: agriculture, industry, real estate development, andyesthe terminal lake itself. But the math is daunting. Separate from any accounting around diversion, the lake loses an estimated 3 million acre feet of water to evaporation each year. At best, Jennings hopes to see Rainmaker produce 250,000 acre feet.
I am confident that were gonna get punched in the face every which way to Sunday trying to produce the results that we want, Doricko says. Yet, hes undeterred. This seasons projects in the American West are only the beginning. We know that this is a solvable problem. What we have to do is just constantly iterate.
God made the world in six days. But having dominion over creation is the work of a lifetime.
Faking tends to get a bad rap. We celebrate authenticity, praise, and honesty, and preach radical transparencyas if the workplace would magically improve if everyone walked around expressing their unfiltered true selves.
But, imagine for a moment what unedited human authenticity would actually look like in a corporate setting: colleagues announcing every irritation, managers confessing every insecurity, leaders sharing every impulsive thought or half-baked opinion. Actually, that doesnt look overly different from many workplaces!
And yet, most of us are well aware of the dangers of pure self-expression, even if the realization comes mostly from analyzing others rather than ourselves. Its why (most) people dont shout at their boss when theyre annoyed, why teams dont openly critique every colleague they find irritating, and why we dont walk into Monday meetings narrating the full emotional unpacking of our weekend. Okay, some people actually do, but its painful to witness and awkward, to say the least. Total honesty is not a virtue, but a reputational hazard.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Strategic self-editing
For that reason, faking good, or engaging in strategic self-presentation (adjusting your behavior in order to sacrifice your right of self-expression for the benefit of others, and in turn, yourself), is far more common than we think. Most professionals engage in small, strategic acts of self-editing or impression management every single day; and the best ones are so good at it that they come across as authentic.
Examples include:
Smiling politely through a tedious meeting youd rather not attend, because theres just no point to it.
Pretending to be more confident than you feel before delivering a presentation, because it makes you seem more competent.
Downplaying frustration with a colleague to maintain team harmony, because whats the point of escalating?
Expressing enthusiasm for a new initiative you suspect may not survive the quarter, because the alternative (expressing your sincere objection) will jeopardize your political cache.
Social grease
To be sure, the above examples arent moral failures, but rather, the lubricant that keeps human groups from falling apart. And more often than not, some degree of faking is preferable to complete honesty or radical transparency. For example, most people prefer fake kindness than genuine rudeness, or fake positive feedback to honest criticism.
In line, consider:
A leader who shares every fear or insecurity would destabilize their team.
A colleague who offers unfiltered feedback would be unbearable.
A customer-facing employee who reacts authentically to rude clients would put the company at risk (and lose their job before this can become a pattern).
A manager who says what they really think during performance reviews would end up with more resignations than development plans.
To make matters more complicated, faking is extremely hard to assesspartly because people lie to themselves all the time, and often for adaptive reasons. Evolutionarily, self-deception helped humans project confidence, reduce anxiety, and persuade others: fooling others is easier when you can fool yourself first. Cognitive biases such as optimism bias (Im more capable than the evidence suggests) or the illusion of control (Ive got this under control) help people navigate uncertainty and maintain motivation. These subtle self-delusions blur the line between strategic faking and genuine belief.
Curating our corporate persona
So how should we interpret the relentless pressure to be honest, be yourself, or bring your whole self to work? At best, these mantras are idealistic; at worst, theyre hypocritical. We often want others to be radically transparent so we can have more data about their weaknesses and vulnerabilities . . . while we quietly curate our own professional persona to appear competent, composed, and likable.
In truth, workplaces function better when people know how to fake constructively. Impression management is not the enemy; in many ways, it is the behavioral ingredient behind emotional intelligence. People who can regulate their impulses, moderate their reactions, and manage how they come across are easier to follow, easier to collaborate with, and far more effective as leaders.
Crucially, what matters is not how authentic or honest you believe yourself to be, but how authentic and trustworthy others perceive you to be. And herein lies the paradox: the people who are consistently viewed as authentic, grounded, and trustworthy tend to engage in a great deal of strategic impression management.
Examples include:
Leaders who rehearse their spontaneous town hall remarks to ensure they land with sincerity.
Managers who deliberately regulate their emotions to project calm under pressure (more Angela Merkel than Tony Soprano).
Colleagues who consciously show empathy, even when they dont feel it naturally, because they know it strengthens relationships. Note that since empathy evolves as a neural adaptation to prioritize people who are genetically related to us (or part of our tribe), the only way to work with people who are different from us is to fake it, engaging in rational or artificial tolerance and kindness instead.
None of this is fake in the deceptive sense: it is practiced, intentional, and other-oriented, which is precisely why it works.
A balance of honesty and tact
In the end, the real mistake is treating authenticity and faking as opposites. Healthy workplaces actually depend on people who can manage themselves thoughtfully, speak honestly but tactfully, and project the best versions of who they are, understanding where their right to just be themselves ends and their obligation to others beginseven when it doesnt perfectly match how they feel in the moment. The goal is not to eliminate faking; it is to elevate it into a mature, prosocial skill. After all, the best leaders are not those who express their true selves without inhibition, but those who know when to edit, when to filter, and when to perform the version of themselves that helps others succeed. In that sense, it would be logical to redefine honesty as the inability to display emotional intelligence.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
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.
