As cases of potentially deadly botulism in babies who drank ByHeart infant formula continue to grow, state officials say they are still finding the recalled product on some store shelves.
Meanwhile, the company reported late Wednesday that laboratory tests confirmed that some samples of formula were contaminated with the type of bacteria that has sickened more than 30 babies in the outbreak.
Tests by an independent food safety laboratory found Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that produces toxins that can lead to potentially life-threatening illness in babies younger than 1, the company said on its website. ByHeart officials said they notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of the findings but did not specify how many samples were tested or how many were positive.
We are working to investigate the facts, conduct ongoing testing to identify the source, and ensure this does not happen to families again, ByHeart said on its website.
The FDA did not immediately respond to questions about the findings.
The lab results come as investigators in at least three states found ByHeart formula still for sale even after the New York-based company recalled all products nationwide, officials told The Associated Press.
At least 31 babies in 15 states who drank ByHeart formula have been hospitalized and treated for infantile botulism since August, federal health officials said Wednesday. They range in age from about 2 weeks to about 6 months, with the most recent case reported on Nov. 13.
No deaths have been reported.
In Oregon, nine of more than 150 stores checked still had the formula on shelves this week, a state agriculture official said. In Minnesota, investigators conducted 119 checks between Nov. 13 and Nov. 17 and removed recalled products from sale at four sites, an agriculture department official said. An Arizona health official also said they found the product available.
Businesses and consumers should remain alert, Minnesota officials said in a statement. No affected product should be sold or consumed, they wrote.
Investigators with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration conducted inspections at ByHeart manufacturing plants in Allerton, Iowa, and Portland, Oregon. No results from the inspections have been reported.
California officials previously confirmed the germ that can lead to illness in an open can of ByHeart formula fed to a baby who fell ill.
Infant botulism, which can cause paralysis and death, is caused by a type of bacteria that forms spores that germinate in a baby’s gut and produce a toxin.
Symptoms can take up to 30 days to develop and include constipation, poor feeding, a weak cry, drooping eyelids, or a flat facial expression. Babies can develop weakness in their limbs and head and may feel floppy. They can have trouble swallowing or breathing.
ByHeart had been manufacturing about 200,000 cans of formula per month. It was sold online or at retail stores such as Target and Walmart. A Walmart spokesperson said the company swiftly issued a restriction that prevented sale of the formula, removed the product from stores, and notified consumers who had bought it. Customers can visit any store for a refund of the formula, which sold for about $42 per can.
Federal and state health officials are concerned that some parents and caregivers may still have ByHeart products in their homes. They are advising consumers to stop using the product including formula in cans and any single-serve sticks. They also suggest marking it DO NOT USE and keeping it for at least a month in case a baby develops symptoms. In that case, the formula would need to be tested.
The California health department operates the Infant Botulism Treatment and Prevention Program, which tracks cases and distributes treatment for the disease. Officials there have launched a public hotline at 833-398-2022, which is staffed with health officials from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
The new hotline was created after calls from hundreds of parents and caregivers flooded a different, longstanding hotline for doctors to discuss suspected infant botulism cases, officials said.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Jonel Aleccia, AP health writer
In utterly bleak news, AI Overviews are now more accurate about the lack of a relationship between autism and vaccines than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
On Wednesday, November 19, the CDC published an updated web page that defies broad scientific consensus and even its own past statements. The page now alleges that vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
It must be said as early and clearly as possible that there is no link between vaccines and autism, as overwhelming data has demonstrated.
Despite that fact, the first paragraph of the CDCs guidance on vaccines and autism now reads, “Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism.”
The update exploits a loophole that allows for fearmongering to continue, experts say.
The CDC can justify changing its stance despite overwhelming evidence by exploiting a quirk of logic: you cant prove something never happens, writes Dr. Jake Scott, a board-certified infectious diseases specialist and clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. Scientists cant prove vaccines never cause autism because proving a universal negative is logically impossible.”
He adds that “the public can trust the evidence because it has shown time and time again that there is no link between vaccines and autism.”
Debra Houry, the CDCs former chief medical officer, told the Washington Post that the CDC’s updated language “misrepresents decades of research.”
Newly updated page tops Google search results
A Google search of vaccine autism brings an AI Overview stating that Scientific evidence from numerous large-scale studies has overwhelmingly demonstrated no causal link between vaccines and autism.
The AI-generated result cites the CDC, World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
At the same time, the CDCs newly updated page is one of the first links shown on Google after years of building up search credibility.
According to its priority statement, the CDC claims that it must lead with integrity and serves the American publicindividuals, families, and communitieswho rely on accurate data, health guidance, and preventive measures.
Yet it has published a falsehood that appears to bend to the will of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who has peddled anti-vax conspiracies along with an unproven link between taking Tylenol while pregnant and babies developing autism.
Kennedy was sworn in as U.S. health secretary in Februaryand his influence has been swift.
The next month, news broke that the CDC planned to undertake a large study into the link between vaccines and autism just as declines in vaccinations fueled measles outbreaks in children.
Twisting an old headline
The newly updated CDC guidance is, even more confusingly, still titled, Vaccines do not cause autism.”
It comes with an asterisk that the headline only remains because of an agreement with Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, to keep it on the CDC website.
In February, Cassidy spoke in favor of Kennedy as U.S. health secretary, critically stating that the latter committed that he would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems.”
Cassidy continued: “CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism.
The Republican senator even emphasized earlier in his speech that the evidence shows that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet now the headline is followed with efforts to disprove the scientific evidence behind it.
Fast Company has reached out to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Senator Cassidy for comment and will update this post if we hear back.
Maybe your car broke down, your computer was stolen, or you had a surprise visit to urgent care. Emergencies are inevitable, but you can prepare to deal with them by building an emergency fund.
There are so many things that happen in our lives that we dont expect and most of them require financial means to overcome, said Miklos Ringbauer, a certified public accountant.
The industry standard is to save three to six months of expenses in an emergency fund. However, this can feel daunting if you live paycheck to paycheck or if you have debt. But if youre in either of these situations, its even more crucial to build a financial safety net that can help you in times of crisis.
Emergency funds allow you to prevent further debt, said Jaime Eckels, certified financial planner and wealth management leader for Plante Moran Financial Advisors.
Suppose youre paying multiple credit cards and other loans. In that case, Rachel Lawrence, head of advice and planning for Monarch Money, a financial planning and budgeting app, recommends that you make the minimum payments while you build your emergency fund. Once youve hit an amount that feels right for your lifestyle, you can go back and continue tackling your debt more aggressively.
Whether you want to start an emergency fund or create better habits while you save, here are some expert recommendations:
Start with small milestones
The idea of saving for three to six months worth of expenses can be daunting, so its best to start with a smaller milestone. Lawrence recommends starting with a goal of saving $1,000, then moving on to save one, three, and six months of expenses.
The way you approach this goal can vary depending on your income and your budget. But starting with small, attainable goals can help you build an emergency fund without feeling financially strained.
Starting small is okay. Even if its $20 right out of your paycheck, those small things can add up, Eckels said.
She recommends building your emergency fund in a separate account from your regular savings account, ideally a high-yield savings account, which offers a higher interest rate than a traditional savings account.
Decide on the appropriate amount for your life
Knowing how much to save for your emergency fund depends on your life situation. Lawrence suggests you gauge your own financial responsibilities to estimate how much your ideal emergency fund should be.
For single professionals with no significant financial responsibilities, such as a mortgage or a car, the amount might be $2,000 to $3,000. At the same time, people with children and several pets might aim to save for six months expenses.
There’s no one-shoe-fits-all solution. Everybody is different, especially if you have variable expenses on a monthly basis, Ringbauer said.
Lawrence recommends that self-employed people maintain two emergency funds: one to buffer low-income months and another for true emergencies. To build your buffer account, Lawrence recommends setting aside some money during high-earning months.
You set that amount aside in your buffer account until you have two or three months of the amount that you want, she said. Because that way any month where you have less money, you go pull from the buffer and its no big deal.
Automate your savings
Eckels recommends setting up automatic savings as a low-effort way to build your emergency fund.
Scheduling your savings to be withdrawn from your bank account as soon as your paycheck arrives is an effective way to build a savings habit without having to transfer the money manually.
I always tell people if it was never in your bank account, you never had it, right? Eckels added.
She also recommends that her clients open a separate account, one that isnt at the same bank as their checking account, so they arent tempted to transfer the money in a non-emergency.
Make it visual
As youre making progress towards your emergency fund goal, making it visual can help you stay motivated, according to Lawrence.
She recommends getting creative with how you track your progress, ideally with a method that brings you joy.
You want your brain to get rewarded as often as possible when youre seeing a bunch of progress, she said.
Some options to make your progress visual include drawing a thermometer-like tracker and keeping it updated as you advance toward your goal, documenting your progress on a habit-building tracker on your phone, or using a budgeting app with a tracking tool.
Save windfalls
If your budget is really tight and you dont have much wiggle room to set aside money for an emergency fund, Lawrence recommends saving windfalls.
Unexpected chunks of money that maybe you werent expecting, like tax refunds or getting a third paycheck when you normally get paid twice a month, or a bonus, those are your best ways to make progress when youre tight otherwise, said Lawrence.
In general, Lawrence recommends that people keep 10% of their windfall for themselves and the rest for their emergency fund. With that breakdown, you can both save and feel rewarded by the unexpected income.
If you use it, don’t feel guilty
Chances are that an emergency will happen, and when it does, you dont need to feel guilty for using your emergency fund, Lawrence said. Instead, its best to think about how youve achieved your goal of building a financial safety net for yourself.
You wouldnt feel bad about using your down payment to buy a house, you wouldnt feel bad about saving for retirement, actually to retire, Lawrence said.
The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.
Adriana Morga, Associated Press
For the 150th episode of my award-winning podcast series, FUTURE OF XYZ, I sat down with Nick Foster, former head of design at Google X and leading futures designer. We quickly found common ground in our strong belief that society doesnt think about the future in the right way. Too often, the future is reduced to flashy visions, both in media headlines and through messages from leading corporations. The future feels like a sci-fi movie that still seems far away. Nick and I both believe the future isnt some distant fantasy, but rather a tomorrow already unfolding before us. To prepare, we must pay closer attention to what we know now and how people are acting today. What drives Nick and his work isnt predictions or bets, but a deeper exploration of how we think about the future itself.
That distinction resonated deeply with me. In my own workwhether the podcast, as a leader at iF Design, or in my consulting work, Ive argued that the future isnt something just out there to predict. Rather, the future is something we actively construct through our choices and the questions we dare to ask.
IMAGINE THE FUTURE
Nicks new book, Could Should Might Dont: How We Think About the Future, emerged from years of conversations inside Google X and beyond, where he noticed a surprising truth: Even among the worlds leading innovators, we often fail to approach the future with real rigor. We rely on hunches, dotted lines, and simplified stories. This lack of discipline not only weakens the conversation, but leaves us ill-equipped for whats actually to come.
Rather than writing a manifesto or prescriptive framework, Nick created a taxonomya way to classify the different modes of imagining the future. By delving into how we think about the future, he hopes our collective conversations become more rounded, more actionable, and more honest about uncertainty.
During our conversation, we touched on the future mundane, the idea that most lived experiences will be found not in extremes, but in the everyday middle of the bell curve. This lens particularly aligns with my own mission at iF Design. Design, after all, is the mediator between big ideas and daily life. From the products we use, to the systems that govern them, to the values they embed, design shapes how we experience change. My role at iF Design is precisely about interrogating this: How do we embed sustainability and impact into design decisions so that what feels ordinary tomorrow reflects responsibility and resilience, not just convenience or speed?
Nick also reflects on a profound cultural shift we are experiencing. For the first time in modern history, entire generations are less confident about what the future will bring. Having pushed exponential economic growth to its limits, were beginning to wrestle with the well, and now what? question that undercuts strident narratives of progress. In my own conversations, Ive seen how this moment of reckoning demands we focus on intentionality, pivoting from chasing growth alone to cultivating resilience.
WHATS NEXT
In Nicks view, technology currently holds the wheel when it comes to shaping whats next. With that power comes responsibilitya responsibility corporations and societies alike have yet to fully embrace. I often remind audiences that while technology will remain a critical driver, its our values, our courage, and our willingness to collaborate that will ultimately determine the future(s) we design into being.
And as Nick reminded me, in a time of unprecedented change, we must resist the urge to cling blindly to what we already believe. Instead, we need to ask deeper questions, demand more rigorous thinking, and recognize that imagining the future is not just for futurists. Its a collective skill we all must learnand practice together.
Thats precisely why this conversation mattered to me. Every day I explore how leadership, design, and purpose intersect to shape a more human, more sustainable future. Nicks work underscores that same truth: The future isnt something happening to us. Its something we are all responsible for shaping. And that begins with how we choose to think, design, and act today.
Lisa Gralnek is global head of sustainability and impact for iF Design, managing director of iF Design USA Inc., and creator/host of the podcast, FUTURE OF XYZ.
Picture the scene. Youve advertised a job on LinkedIn and received applications from around Europe. The perfect candidate lives in one of the worlds top tech citiesParis, Berlin, or Amsterdam, for instance. Your company is based somewhere in Europe, so hiring them should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, no.
Despite their geographical proximity, countries in Europe still vary significantly in their hiring rules and regulations, making it hard to compliantly pay cross-border workers. Lets take a closer look at the problem.
So close, yet so far
Theres naturally a certain amount of friction in terms of labor law compatibility between European states inside and outside of the European Union (EU). But even within the umbrella of the EU, countries have their own labor, tax, and social security rules that can turn simple payroll procedures into a nightmare.
Thats because EU labor law is issued via directives that allow member states discretion in how they implement rulings. For businesses, this makes an EU-wide hiring strategy impossible, instead requiring individual approaches to each and every country a company might want to hire inup to and including incorporation.
This isnt something that can be done as an afterthought. Misclassifying a worker, for instance by employing someone as a contractor rather than an employee, may lead to penalties and legal trouble.
The state of cross-border hiring in Europe
Despite the difficulties, businesses continue to hire across borders for the simple reason that talent is getting harder to find locally. One report found that 54% of European employers expect labour shortages to worsen over the next five years. And a patchwork of talent availability means skills and the businesses that need them are rarely in the same placeforcing businesses to look elsewhere.
But hiring across borders isnt getting easier. While the demand for specialized talent has increased by 112% over the last three years, the complexity of hiring talent has also increasedparticularly in the EU, with incoming requirements like the pay transparency directive.
The movement of workers between countries is also a minefield. Under EU rules, employees can only be subject to one countrys social security requirements at a time (to avoid double contributions). Some countries have cross-border agreements but employee tax exposure can be hard to fully comprehend, even for the experts.
Heres what that looks like in practice
A London startup wants to hire its first engineer in Berlin. Expanding into a new European talent market means a costly and months-long process of establishing a business entityall to justify a headcount of one.
How about a Dutch company trying to support an employee relocating to Spain? The employer wants to be supportive, but there are clear tax residency and other legal implications such as pay transparency that have to be explored.
The difficulty of navigating these all-too-common issues is putting a roadblock on progress and forcing businesses to compromise on quality by hiring in their own backyards.
The problem with payroll
Despite most companies having employees in more than one country, the means of paying them continue to lag behind. Payroll (often the largest expense for a company at around 50-60% of spending) has historically been seen as a back-office burden. Payroll is an essential cost of business, but because of all the challenges weve discussed, its expensive, complex, and generally fails to add strategic value.
When youre running payroll across borders, the complexity only goes up. Indeed, 85% of global executives say compliance requirements have become more complex in the last three years. In short, its all risk and no reward.
The right software can help
In response to the expanding global workforce, more workforce management companies are developing software designed to help companies hire and pay European workers without the burden of navigating complex administrative requirements. My company, Multiplier, offers one of these solutions.
As a centralized platform for payroll operations, our payroll solution enables companies to pay employees in countries where they dont have a legal entity, fully compliant with local tax and social security rules.
This would allow the London startup discussed earlier to hire its first engineer in Berlin without the delay and expense of incorporation in Germany. And if things dont work out, the startup wont have to go through the rigmarole of shutting down an entity in Berlin afterwards.
Similarly, the Dutch company with a marketer who relocated to Spain doesnt have to worry about the tax residency implications and potential penalties. They can seamlessly support their employees without disrupting their existing payroll compliance efforts.
Unlocking European talent
Paying people across borders is a problem unlikely to be solved politically. In an increasingly multipoar world, theres little prospect of the increased regulatory alignment necessary to enable seamless international payments.
In the meantime, payroll solutions will help remove the friction required to pay cross-border workers, helping companies to accelerate their growth and recruit the best European talentinstead of settling for the best available talent locally.
Sagar Khatri is CEO and cofounder of Multiplier.
Microsoft is the latest tech giant to announce its new return-to-work (RTO) mandate. The first phase of the mandate is set to start in February 2026, requiring Seattle-area employees living within a 50 miles radius of a Microsoft office will need to be in office at least three days a week. Over the next year, the company expects the same from the rest of its U.S. and international employees.
Microsoft was one of the last big companies to offer their workforce flexibility. Competitors like Google, Meta, Amazon, Zoom, and AT&T have all announced their own unique policies requiring workers to be in the office.
These are all innovative, technology-led companies. Yet their RTO mandates and hybrid work policies are all supremely outdated.
Instead of honestly considering what the future of work means for employees and how it can benefit companies, many leaders are scared that if employees are allowed to work from anywhere, they will lose a bit of control over their workforce.
Real leaders are embracing the future. At Gather, we recognize that flexibility is the key to accessing higher tier talent, bigger clients, and ultimately better business outcomes.
Change of mindset
Once upon a time, CEOs were huge fans of working from home. Many notable business leaders are on record stating the benefits of working from home from a business, personal, and even a societal level. Mark Zuckerberg famously said, I’ve found that working remotely has given me more space for long-term thinking and helped me spend more time with my family, which has made me happier and more productive at work.
Why the sudden shift?
These RTO mandates arent to build culture or increase productivity or any of the other canned responses. Instead, many companies are locked into long-term leases on office spaces in cities all across the country. For decades, a 10-year lease for office space was the norm for large corporations. It kept rent costs stable and allowed companies to set up roots in major hubs across the nation. When companies signed these leases, it was a smart move.
Then came the pandemic. People were forced to work from home. Large office spaces werent just unnecessary; they became a hazard for employee safety. All work shifted to remote work, and the results spoke for themselves.
A study from the U.S. Career Institute found that companies can save up to $10,600 per employee who works remotely and remote work can have a positive impact on an employees mental and physical health. Countering many productivity claims, the study also found that 79% of managers feel their team is more productive when working remotely.
RTO does more harm than good
Fast forward a few years post-pandemic, and these long-term leases still exist. Despite all the benefits seen from remote work, companies are desperate to justify their massive spends on office space. So, employees are coerced to get their butts back in seats with rigid mandates bolstered by claims of productivity.
These mandates have already demonstrated a negative impact on employees and businesses alike. There is little evidence that RTO mandates improve a companys financial performance, according to an MIT Sloan Management Review article. RTO mandates disrupt employees established positive work routines, leading to higher attrition, especially among high-performing employees and those with caregiving responsibilitiesanother strike against corporate America and its record with women in the workforce.
Whats more, RTO mandates often function as thinly veiled layoffs, further increasing attrition and the exodus of top talent while decreasing trust. A recent study from Workways found that 71% of HR leaders report eroded trust post-RTO announcements and 80% of companies lost talent because of the mandates.
Even if returning to the office actually increased productivity, to make the terms of returning so inflexible disregards the way people work. Even when these mandates are classified as hybrid and only require a few days in the office, companies are missing the point. To be truly productive requires flexibility and agility.
A new definition of hybrid
In 2025, defining hybrid work must go well beyond the outdated discussion of where work is being done. Hybrid must be multifaceted. Companies need to approach hybrid work by considering which projects and teams come together for collaborative roles and which need the privacy and focus of working independentlyand recognizing that those parameters can change depending on project demands. It is a balance of people, places, tools, and culture.
To be clear, Im not anti-office. There is a time and a place for bolstering corporate culture and collaboration. However, the decision should not be made by executives in an ivory tower but by team leaders based on the needs of their teams.
RTO mandates will continue to make headlines for the rest of this year and any time a major company announces its new policy. But, as these long-term leases diminish, lets see how many mandates remain.
The debate is not and has never been about the RTO mandates themselves. The real debate is on the future of work and what that looks and feels like for leaders.
The pandemic made it clear: Companies are perfectly capable of adapting to the wants and needs of the workforce when forced to do so.
The real future of work isnt about office space, water cooler talk, or butts in seats. It is rooted in trust, respect, and readiness to embrace change. The leaders that follow this path will set their companies up for success, winning the battle for talent and performance.
Justin Tobin is founder and president of Gather.
In recent conversations with customers and peers, Im not hearing Which AI model or tool should we pick? Im hearing How do we operationalize AI across our critical workflows?
People are starting to understand real digital transformation doesnt come from a bolt-on solution. It happens when we treat AI as a foundational force and an engine for lasting change. The shift toward an AI-powered workplace requires leaders to enable organizational intelligence across the enterprise.
WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL INTELLIGENCE?
At Wrike, we define organizational intelligence as the seamless integration of human insight and AI capabilities to drive measurable outcomes at increased speed and scale. Its the difference between patchwork AI adoption and true collaboration between humans and machines.
Done right, organizational intelligence blends human creativity, judgment, context, and intent with AIs strength in driving automation, data synthesis, and pattern recognition. When all of that is present at the same time, AI stops being a feature and evolves into a core part of how a business learns.
Unlocking organizational intelligence goes beyond a change in mindset, although thats key, too. R Ray Wang, CEO of Constellation Research, who I sat down with recently, said everyone is avoiding doing the hard part right nowthe data strategy. But how we handle and manage data is equally critical to getting AI transformation right, alongside culture adjustments, and our enthusiasm toward the technology.
Organizations require a robust foundation for data. This includes designing, structuring, and connecting information so AI can interpret not just isolated facts, but the full business context and meaning behind them.
WHY AI ALONE ISNT THE ANSWER
While business leaders race to bring on AI tools, adoption has often outpaced ROI. McKinsey reports that while a vast majority of companies plan to increase AI investments (92%), only about 1% of leaders say their organizations have reached true AI maturity, where AI is fully integrated and yielding substantial outcomes.
Many popular AI solutions solve isolated problems, automating individual tasks without addressing deeper needs for team alignment, context, and strategy. Instead of outcome-driven decision-making, organizations end up with more fragmentation. Disconnected automations, inconsistent data, and siloed workflows compound inefficiencies.
Recent Wrike research found that 41% of knowledge workers said their companies lost critical information in the past year due to scattered systems and siloed knowledge across platforms.
Thats not a technology failure. Its an organizational one and a leadership oversight that can limit company growth.
3 PRINCIPLES TO ACHIEVE ORGANIZATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
Think of the project manager juggling four different collaboration platforms, each with partial information. AI introduced in that environment wont spark clarity. It will multiply the noise.
As leaders, its our responsibility to move our organizations beyond tool adoption and toward systemic intelligence: connecting people, processes, and platforms into a unified whole. That requires rewiring the way we work and rethinking how we manage data, context, and collaboration. Three principles stand out to me:
1. Build foundation over features
Chasing the newest AI tool can be tempting, but fragmented adoption creates the illusion of scale without delivering true capability. Prioritize a unified foundation where AI can plug in, learn, and operate effectively by clearly documenting and standardizing workflows, improving data hygiene, and consolidating the supporting platforms to drive visibility and ownership.
The question to ask isnt What tool are we adopting? but What system are we building?
2. Make context your competitive edge
AI cant read between the lines if there are no lines to read between. Too often, critical knowledge lives in meeting notes, hallway conversations, or in the minds of employees. Without this context, AI produces generic outputs that lack trust and relevance.
Leaders must operationalize context, as well as embed decision rationales, project outcomes, and other institutional knowledge into workflows. This may come in the form of structured fields for project outcomes, standardized post-mortems, or AI agents trained on your organizations language and workflows.
In a market where business advantage often depends on nuance such as customer preferences, regulatory shifts, and competitive signals, context may be the single sharpest edge we as leaders can champion.
3. Reframe ai as a multiplier, not a shortcut
AI should accelerate human creativity, critical thinking, and connection, not bypass them. This requires leaders to redefine roles: What must humans own, and where can AI extend their reach?
Trust and governance are also non-negotiable. Teams will only adopt AI if they know security and ethics are protected. Leaders who ignore these responsibilities risk stalling adoption before it even begins.
THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE CONNECTED
Moving forward, organizations that thrive wont be defined by the size of their AI stack. Theyll be known for how intelligently they connect teams, workflows, and outcomes so the enterprise learns and improves with every project.
Companies that link people, processes, and platforms into a single intelligent system will adapt faster, innovate more effectively, and build resilience in a rapidly changing environment. Leaders who prioritize organizational intelligence now are setting the stage for these long-term advantages.
Your true differentiator isnt AI alone. Its connection, context, and the combined capacity of humans and machines to learn together within a shared system of record for work.
Tom Scott is the CEO at Wrike/a>.
Yesterday, after the stock markets closing bell, Nvidia Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA) reported its Q3 2026 financials.
Investors were eagerly anticipating the results, as the company is widely seen as a bellwether for the broader artificial intelligence market. Nvidias Q3 results were all the more anticipated as fears over an AI bubble have grown in recent months.
But those fears seem to be put to bed, at least temporarily. Nvidia didnt just meet expectations. It beat them.
As a result, Nvidias stock price is jumping in premarket trading todayand it’s helping lift the stock prices of most other chipmakers and Big Tech giants. Heres what you need to know.
Nvidias Q3 results lift NVDAs stock price
Yesterday, Nvidia reported Q3 results that beat expectations. This includes revenue of $57.01 billion and an adjusted earnings per share (EPS) of $1.30. As noted by CNBC, LSEG analysts had expected Nvidia to post $54.92 billion in revenue and an adjusted EPS of $1.25.
But it wasnt just these all-important beats that investors are celebrating.
Nvidia also said it expects revenue in its current Q4 to reach around $65 billion. Analysts had been expecting around $62 billion. Further, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang started off the companys financial call addressing fears about an AI bubble head-on.
Theres been a lot of talk about an AI bubble, Huang said. But from our vantage point, were seeing something very different.
He went on to detail three broad technological transitions, which he says are driving the AI industry.
As a result of the good news, Nvidia shares are jumping in premarket trading this morning, as of the time of this writing.
Currently, NVDA shares are up nearly 5% to almost $196 per share. Yesterday, NVDA shares closed up 2.85% to 186.52.
But over the past five-day period, NVDA shares had sunk 3.76% as fears of an AI bubble grew. However, based on Nvidias stock price this morning, the companys quarterly results and forecast have allayed investors’ fears.
And Nvidias stock price isnt the only one that is rising.
Chipmaking stocks jump after Nvidias earnings beat
Nvidia is a sort of bellwether for chipmaker stocks. If Nvidia is doing well or, more importantly, forecasting growth, many investors believe that growth potential could favorably affect other chipmaker stocks and the stock prices of the companies that those chipmakers rely on.
And today, it appears Nvidia is indeed having a rising tide lifts all boats effect on broader chip stocks.
As of this writing, major chipmakers and chip-adjacent companies are seeing their stock prices rise in premarket, including:
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMD): up 4.3%
Arm Holdings plc (Nasdaq: ARM): up 3.3%
Broadcom Inc. (Nasdaq: AVGO):up 2.8%
Intel Corporation (Nasdaq: INTC): up 1.8%
Micron Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: MU):up 2.3%
NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA): up 6%
QUALCOMM Incorporated (Nasdaq: QCOM):up 0.8%
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (NYSE: TSM):up 2.5%
Big Tech shares are also rising after Nvidias earnings
It’s not just chip stocks that are getting a lift after Nvidias earnings.
As Nvidia is grouped in with the Magnificent Seven, its positive earnings often help lift the share prices of other tech giants, many of whom are deeply invested in the AI space.
As of the time of this writing, those other tech giants are also seeing green in premarket trading, including:
Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG):up 1.9%
Amazon.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN): up 1.6%
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL):up 0.4%
Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nasdaq: META): up 1.2%
Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT): up 1%
Tesla, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSLA): up 1.9%
Of course, while investors are cheering Nvidias earnings beat this morning, plenty of industry watchers still have fears that an AI bubble could be upon us.
For now, Wall Street appears happy to put those fears on the back burnerat least until Nvidias fourth-quarter earnings approach in another three months.
In a world where AI can churn out chart-toppers in seconds and ticketing algorithms treat fans like data points, we risk losing the soul of live music. But a quiet countermovement is making a comeback right in peoples living rooms, backyards and basements.
Once the gritty domain of garage bands and DIY punks, house shows are becoming a structured, sustainable model for music communities embraced by a myriad of musical genres and accessible to all ages. House shows arent just an indie throwback. They serve as a blueprint for re-humanizing music and sustainable artist development, and cities should treat them as civic infrastructure.
Today, fans crave authentic, offline experiences. In Huntsville, Alabama, were betting big on this grassroots phenomenon, not as nostalgia, but as a future-proof cultural strategy meant to empower emerging artists, foster authentic human connection and fill gaps that traditional venues cant.
THE HISTORY OF THE HOUSE SHOW
Van Halens first gigs were at backyard keg parties in California. Hoobastank, Incubus and Linkin Park formed the alternative rock sound of the early 2000s in their parents garages.
But what defines a house show? A house show is first and foremost grounded in a sense of community. Often, a local band or willing host offers up their home to community members for an intimate musical performance. Artists and hosts run the full show, from tickets and gear to promotion, gaining skills theyd never get in a traditional venue.
In 2025, major acts like the All-American Rejects and Machine Gun Kelly are embracing the format. Beyond big-name acts, artists all over the world are curating experiences where audiences can witness the next big thing up close, all while creating connections across demographics. Families, young fans and seasoned music lovers can gather in intimate, inclusive spaces.
Take Common Man, a Huntsville-based husband-wife duo who are now touring the U.S. but remain fiercely dedicated to their community. Now dubbed Common House, Common Man members, Meredith and Compton Johnson, transformed the basement of their home into a live music venue. The duo has not only used house shows to launch their own exposure but also to provide other touring musicians and artists in the community with a platform to perform and reach new audiences in an inclusive environment. Recently, theyve taken their house show model global and performed at homes throughout Scotland. And theyre not aloneHuntsvilles house show scene also includes Boardman House, another grassroots venue making space for live music.
THE CIVIC BET ON THE LIVING ROOM
Cities shouldnt just invest in amphitheaters. They should also invest in cultural infrastructure at the neighborhood level to create intimate, fan-focused environments where artists are in more control of their concert experiences and show revenues, in the venues where careers are born and communities are formed.
When cities support smaller venues, theyre offering benefits traditional venues and platforms cant. For example, were:
Helping with business and/or LLC formation for liability protection.
Advising on ticketing and professional sound and lighting.
Guiding artists through compliance with sound ordinances and neighborhood approvals.
Prioritizing artist pay and sustainability.
Cities often prioritize large or mid-sized venues due to their significant economic impact. House shows fill a different and equally vital gap. They empower artists to control ticket prices and profit margins, bypassing bar-sales-driven venue models. They create peer networking opportunities and act as incubators for emerging talent, offering artists the chance to book, promote and manage shows on a small scale, thereby building skills that can scale to larger venues.
Most importantly, house shows democratize music, embedding it in communities instead of keeping it behind ticketing paywalls. In short, they rebalance the live music economy.
THE REAL-LIFE ANTIDOTE TO AI
In an age where AI-generated bands with entire albums have millions of streams and AI-enhanced performances of deceased artists are gaining popularity, ethical questions are being raised about authenticity and creative displacement.
House shows deliver what algorithms cannot: shared human connection, local community and unpredictable magic in the room. Huntsville frames house shows not as nostalgia, but as a future-proof strategy for live music ecosystems.
House shows arent replacing arenas or amphitheaters; instead, they complement them, with a thriving layer of hyperlocal, artist-first experiences. House shows are a missing piece of the live music ecosystem, and Huntsville is proving that cities can invest in culture not just from the top down, but from the living room up. As AI reshapes how music is made and consumed and fans crave authentic, in-person experiences, these intimate gatherings remind us that the real reasons we gravitate towards music are innately human and communal.
Matt Mandrella is the music officer for the city of Huntsville, Alabama.
Strategy textbooks taught us that sustainable competitive advantage that commanded premium prices was best protected by powerful barriers to entry. Build a moat, create switching costs, leverage access to high costs of entry, own distribution channels, and it would be difficult for startups to compete for your markets. But the forces of disruption operate by different rules, systematically destroying the very foundations of pricing power by making the previously difficult and expensive suddenly easy and cheap. The basis of competition changes, from excellence along well understood dimensions of merit to good enough.
The ‘good enough’ revolution in pricing
I have sympathy for incumbents. Theyre accustomed to working really hard to deliver on demanding criteria for quality, reliability, and excellence, only to find that fickle customers are spending their money on good enough that do just fine. Consider some examples:
Peak book and the advent of e-readers. E-readers lack the tactile satisfaction of turning pages, the smell of paper, and the aesthetic appeal of a beautifully bound book, not to mention the satisfaction of having an author personally sign your copy (if the latter doesnt matter to you, please dont break my heart and tell me). Yet e-books offer instant delivery, the ability to carry thousands of books in one device, adjustable fonts, built-in dictionaries, and search functionality. For many readers, thats good enough. Further, Amazon can sell bestsellers for $9.99 because the marginal cost is near zero, undermining hardcover pricing power. And were now in a world where AI makes it easy for anybody to author a book, commoditizing the authority that being a book author used to convey.
Digital Board Games vs. Physical Board Games. Electronic games lack the social ritual of gathering around a table, handling physical pieces, and reading opponents’ body language. But they enable play with friends anywhere in the world, handle all rules automatically, provide instant matchmaking with strangers, and eliminate setup/cleanup time. A $40 board game becomes a $5 app. Of course, there is a big debate about whether becoming subservient to the companies that want you to rent, rather than own, is a good thing or not.
Streaming Fitness vs. Gym Memberships. Peloton, Apple Fitness+, and YouTube workouts can’t replicate the full equipment range of a commercial gym, the fine-tuning of a professional coach, or the energy of in-person classes. But they eliminate commute time, remove scheduling constraints, offer unlimited class variety, and provide privacy for self-conscious exercisers. A $30/month digital subscription undermines $150/month premium gym memberships for many users.
In the industrial age, you could count on scarcity. It was hard to manufacture with quality at scale. It was hard to do advanced engineering. It was hard to source and assemble materials. For many of us, disruptors change the basis of competition entirely by removing the constraints that once justified premium pricing.
The mechanics of price erosion
Traditional pricing power rested on three pillars: scarcity, complexity, and friction. Companies could charge premiums because their offerings were hard to access, difficult to replicate, or cumbersome to replace. Disruptive technologies attack all three simultaneously. Take professional photography. The scarcity of skilled photographers, expensive equipment, and darkroom expertise once justified substantial fees.
Smartphone cameras and AI-powered editing apps haven’t just reduced these coststhey’ve eliminated entire categories of photographic services. The wedding photographer still commands premiums, but passport photos, real estate listings, and product shots have been democratized beyond recognition.
The financial services industry offers another compelling example. Robo-advisors now provide portfolio management that once required expensive human advisors. The algorithms aren’t more sophisticated than what top wealth managers offer, but they’ve made “good enough” portfolio management available for basis points instead of percentage points. When Charles Schwab can offer comprehensive financial planning for free as a customer acquisition tool, traditional advisors’ ability to charge 1-2% annually becomes increasingly tenuous.
Strategic implications for incumbents
In a world where technology makes everything easier and cheaper, competitive advantage increasingly comes from business model innovation rather than product superiority. Amazon Web Services doesn’t charge premiums because its infrastructure is superior; it dominates because it transformed computing from a capital expense to an operating expense, fundamentally changing how companies think about IT resources.
The most successful responses involve three strategic moves. First, companies need to be open to unbundling their offerings, recognizing that customers will no longer pay premiums for features they don’t value. Second, they must shift from product-centric to ecosystem-centric thinking, finding new sources of value in sticky network effects and data rather than in the core product itself. Third, they must embrace the reality that in many categories, the price will trend toward marginal costwhich in digital goods means effectively zero.
The new basis of competition
As traditional pricing power erodes, new sources of competitive advantage emerge. Speed of innovation, ecosystem orchestration, and customer intimacy become more valuable than product features. Creating stickiness that makes it hard to switch, adding value to the experience and reinforcing new forms of scarcity perhaps embedded in algorithms are all powerful ways that digital firms sustain competitive advantage.
Spotify, for instance, operates in a world where recorded music is effectively free. Its pricing power doesn’t come from exclusive content but from its recommendation algorithms, social features, and ecosystem integrations. The premium isn’t for the musicit’s for the experience around the music. And for artists, their revenue is increasingly coming from what is scarce the experience of attending a live performance.
The bad news is that for many experts with years of investment in the old paradigms, the good enough revolution will make their experince less valuable. The good news is that democratizing who can create whats good enough can be a basis for massive growth.
