Eileen Gu, the 22-year-old Chinese freeskier who just became the most decorated Olympian in women’s freestyle skiing, stood up for herself when speaking to a reporter at a press conference this week. In doing so, the skier unwittingly gave women everywhere an absolute masterclass in knowing their worth.
The skier, who previously earned a gold medal and two silvers at the Beijing winter games in 2022, has earned two more silver medals at the current Milan Cortina games, becoming the most decorated athlete in her sport. And she’s not finished yetGu is still set to compete in the women’s halfpipe qualifier on Thursday and the halfpipe final on Saturday. The skier is also the only female freeskier to compete in three disciplines (slopestyle, halfpipe and big air) at the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Regardless of the athlete’s incredible run thus far, a reporter asked Gu a question that raised some eyebrows on Monday. Most notably, Gu’s.
The reporter asked the Olympian whether she was proud of her two new silver medals, or if she considered them to be “two golds lost.” The question seemed to minimize Gu’s incredible accomplishments in her sport, given her success. However, the athlete (who burst out laughing at first) did not shy away from making one thing abundantly clear: no one is going to cast a shadow over her or her achievements.
Gu launched into an articulate and fierce response that was brimming with self-assuredness.
Im the most decorated female freeskier in history, I think thats an answer in and of itself,” she began. How do I say this? Winning a medal at the Olympics is a life-changing experience for every athlete. Doing it five times is exponentially harder because every medal is equally hard for me, but everybody elses expectations rise, right?”
She continued: The two medals lost situation, to be quite frank with you, I think is kind of a ridiculous perspective to take. Im showcasing my best skiing, Im doing things that quite literally have never been done before so I think that is more than good enough, but thank you.
The exchange was nothing short of extraordinary. Not just because the question was, well, embarrassing (for the reporter), but because it showed that you can be the most decorated female athlete in your sport and still have your accomplishments diminished.
More frustratingly, it’s hard to imagine a male athlete being asked if he considered his Olympic medals a failure.
Still, the phenomenon of diminishing women’s most incredible accomplishments isn’t new. In fact, most successful women experience it at some point. According to a 2023 study led by Women of Influence+, women in the workplace feel persistently penalized for being ambitious. In a survey of 4,710 respondents across 103 countries, over 86% of women said they experienced being undermined, cut down, or diminished due to their success. Who is doing the cutting down? When it comes to successful women, usually, a man. Specifically, it’s male leaders who are the most likely to dim women’s accomplishments, the survey found.
For women, that’s part of why being at the top of your game can feel like a blessing and a curse. Because while women often feel they have to work harder than men to get recognized, earning their keep can also come with this unpleasant side effect.
Thankfully, Gu just showed us exactly how to stand tall, own our success, and name our accomplishments in the face of dismissal.
Because, whether you’re on top of a mountain, or starting at the lowest rung in the officethere will likely be someone who doubts you no matter what. Knowing your worth is the only surefire way to win.
For all the talk from employers who claim to understand the needs of working parents, childcare benefits remain elusive in many workplaces.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that employees strongly value these benefits, which can run the gamut from childcare subsidies to backup care options. As working parents have demanded more from their employers, these perks have grown in popularity in certain workplaces, alongside more generous parental leave policies.
But the companies that offer childcare benefits are still in the minority.
The latest edition of an annual study from national childcare provider KinderCare compiled in partnership with the Harris Poll finds that one in three employers do not offer any kind of childcare benefits. And yet, the vast majority of parents surveyed85%said childcare benefits were essential, on par with health insurance and retirement benefits.
Childcare ranks as a top-three benefit
Of the more than 2,500 respondents, 70% expressed that health insurance was the most crucial workplace benefit, while 56% cited paid time off. But childcare ranked just after healthcare and PTOmaking it one of the top three benefits that was most important to working parents. For a quarter of low-income parents, childcare was actually the leading benefit.
Even when companies do offer childcare benefits, however, many working parents find that there is little clarity around what that means for them.
Over half of the people surveyed said it was difficult to understand my current childcare benefits, while 71% claimed their employer rarely highlights support for working parents. In fact, 69% said it was a red flag if a company did not broach the subject of support for parents during a job interview.
Less support equals more pressure
These findings underscore the bind many working parents find themselves in, as they struggle to juggle their caregiving responsibilities and cover the sky-high cost of childcare.
A growing number of parents now expect their employers to help them bridge the gap, in no small part because raising children can take a toll on their careers and require a job with more flexibility. KinderCare found that over 60% of people surveyed would reduce their hours or take on a less demanding jobor had already done sodue to their childcare needs.
That was even more common among low-income parents, with 80% of them saying they had switched jobs or would consider doing so because of childcare issues.
Younger parents who identified as Gen Z were also more likely to make career changes to accommodate having children. Two-thirds of parents say that unreliable childcare has had an impact on their productivity at work, while about three in four parents say that even jobs with more flexibility still put implicit pressure on them to be always available.
Women bearing the bruntagain
The lack of adequate support is impacting plenty of working parents, as this study makes evident: Over half of the parents surveyed by KinderCare claim to be searching for new jobs that promise better childcare benefits, and 60% worry they will have to dial back work commitments to accommodate their parenting duties.
But it is women who often bear the brunt of caregiving responsibilitiesand, in turn, tend to get penalized in the workplace for those obligations.
During the pandemic, many women were forced to step away from work when their childcare arrangements fell through and schools went remote, which left them struggling to continue working while watching their children. After years of a strong recovery, working mothers seem to be facing hurdles yet again, as childcare costs continue to climb and perks like remote work have slipped away; the Trump administration has also repeatedly targeted childcare funding for low-income families.
In 2025, about 212,000 women exited the workforce between January and June; according to a Washington Post analysis, the number of working mothers between the ages of 25 and 44 dropped by nearly three percentage points. The December jobs report showed that 81,000 workers left the labor forceand an analysis by the National Womens Law Center revealed that all of those workers were women.
Theres a lot at stake for companies that fail to invest in childcare benefits or support workers who are parents, between employee turnover and declining productivity. In the KinderCare study, nearly 80% of people surveyed said they would be more loyal to their employer if they felt more supported as parents.
As working parents increasingly look to their employers to help navigate childcare challenges, companies have an opportunityand perhaps a responsibility, too, to try and retain some of their best workers.
The Reeses brand just took a hit from an unlikely source: the descendant of its founder.
In 1919, H.B. Reese created his eponymous candy company. In 1928, he invented the flagship peanut butter cups that would define his brand, and in 1963, his sons sold the company to The Hershey Co. Now, H.B. Reeses grandson Brad Reese is standing up for his grandpas original recipe, alleging that Hershey has replaced a portion of Reeses Peanut Butter Cups key ingredients with lower-quality alternatives.
Reese addressed Hershey via a LinkedIn post on Valentines Day that has since gone viral, claiming that the company now uses compound coatings instead of milk chocolate, and peanutbutterstyle crmes instead of peanut butter.
How does The Hershey Company continue to position REESES as its flagship brand, a symbol of trust, quality and leadership, while quietly replacing the very ingredients (Milk Chocolate + Peanut Butter) that built REESE’S trust in the first place? Reese asked in his post.
In a statement to Fast Company, Hershey defended its recipes, saying that Reeses Peanut Butter Cups are made the same way they always have been, from milk chocolate and peanut butter.
As weve grown and expanded the Reeses product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes and innovations that Reeses fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reeses unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter, Hershey said.
But Hershey consumers across social media are siding with Reese, claiming that theyve noticed the difference in taste across Reeses products and lamenting the apparent decline of their favorite candy.
“I love my Reese’s but I stopped eating them last Halloween because that’s when I noticed a big change. They got mad nasty. The chocolate was off and the peanut butter got really grainy and disgusting,” one user shared.
he's absolutely right. they are different. started realizing it when little kids in our classrooms started wasting them or not picking them from the treat jar UNLESS they were the Miniatures. we thought we got a stale batch, then tried different sizes. the only way to describe https://t.co/20dWSUrzAp— Sassington, M.C. (@MissSassbox) February 18, 2026
I have been saying this for years and no one believed me https://t.co/Gvmfruui5e— Jessica Smetana (@jessica_smetana) February 19, 2026
I love my Reese's but I stopped eating them last Halloween because that's when I noticed a big change. They got mad nasty.The chocolate was off and the peanut butter got really grainy and disgusting. They just weren't the same anymore. I didn't ask for any for Christmas either. https://t.co/dVeGsgauNs pic.twitter.com/YdJ4hzC8AK— Southern Fried StoNerD (@southernstonerd) February 19, 2026
Others took Reeses claim as evidence that the enshittification phenomenon is coming not just for our online platforms, but for our candy.
Why is so much of the stuff we all grew up with slowly getting shittier with each passing year? https://t.co/1k6v89dd1Z— Oliver Jia () (@OliverJia1014) February 19, 2026
EXCUSE ME WHY HAVEN'T WE HEARD ABOUT THIS YETTHE ENSHITIFICATION MARCHES ON https://t.co/HHMxoLcP3Y— mastaprincess (@mastaprincess) February 19, 2026
Reese himself also offered a firsthand account in an interview with the Associated Press. He tried a new Valentines Day-themed product, Reeses Mini Hearts, but ultimately threw out the bag. The candys packaging seemed to affirm Reeses suspicions, listing chocolate candy and peanut butter creme as primary ingredients, not milk chocolate and peanut butter.
It was not edible, Reese told the AP. You have to understand. I used to eat a Reeses product every day. This is very devastating for me.
He added that Hershey should take a cue from its own founder, Milton Hershey, who famously said, Give them quality, thats the best advertising.
I absolutely believe in innovation, but my preference is innovation with quality, Reese said.
From afar, Legos new set inspired by Claude Monets painting Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies looks like a slightly more vivid version of the original. Step a bit closer, though, and youll find that its intricate brushstrokes are composed of Lego bananas, katana swords, and carrot tops.
The new 3,179-piece set was created in collaboration with The Metropolitan Museum of Art, where Monets original 1899 artwork, inspired by his idyllic garden in Giverny, is on display. Legos designers spent more than a year working in tandem with the museums curators to faithfully re-create the original paintings iconic Impressionist scene. The set will be available to the public starting on March 4 for $249.99.
Over the past few years, as Lego has begun to invest heavily in its sets and products targeted at an adult audience, its designers have had to develop new construction techniques to re-create a wide range of historical artworks. These include sets based on Vincent van Goghs Starry Night and Sunflowers, which use chunky Lego bricks to represent thick layers of paint; a set based on Art Hokusais The Great Wave, which achieves a 3D effect though cleverly layered bricks; and a re-creation of Keith Harings dancing figures, which relies on clear Lego pieces to imitate Harings line work. The new Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies may be their most technically challenging effort yet.
[Photo: Lego]
How Lego’s designers cleverly mimicked Monet’s style
From the beginning, Legos collaboration with The Met was a hands-on process.
This piece was chosen through close dialogue between The LEGO Group and The Met, says Stijn Oom, a Lego designer. Together, we identified a fanfavorite artwork that would translate well into an immersive build. Throughout the process, we worked with curators, reviewed color references, and explored how to mirror the paintings layered techniques with LEGO elements. The aim was to let the build itself echo the feeling of creating the original artwork, while giving fans new entry points into Monets world.
[Photo: Lego]
The process started with Legos design team visiting The Met to see Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies in person. There, they got an up-close look at Monets image of the Japanese-style bridge arching over his backyard pond, rendered in soft hues and small, densely packed brushstrokes. As Ooms team began work on the Lego version, Met staffers also made trips to Legos headquarters in Denmark to review their drafts.
In an interview with Artnet, Alison Hokanson, a European paintings curator at The Met, explained that the painting represented a major undertaking for Legos team because of its intricate Impressionist technique, which is difficult to replicate with small Lego pieces.
[Photo: Lego]
Oom describes the process as both thrilling and challenging. Because Legos color palette was more limited than what Monet could mix on his canvas, Ooms team opted for a brighter palette and blended tones to strike the right color balance. Another key obstacle was accurately recreating the paintings sense of scale and depth. To create the optical illusion of forced perspective, Legos designers carefully layered smaller, darker elements behind the bridge, while positioning larger, brighter elements in front.
[Photo: Lego]
While experimenting with ways to mimic Monets depictions of light and movement, Ooms team stumbled across several clever uses for some unexpected Lego bricks. The works waterlily pads, for example, are made from a combination of tiles, painters palettes, brushes, and shields, all layered and overlapped to echo the varied thickness and direction of the real paint strokes. The willow tree in the works top left corner uses bars and carrot tops to mimic long, cascading green strokes. And in the vegetation under the bridge, horns, bananas, and katana swords are all carefully placed o guide the eye across the scene.
There are plenty of delightful wait, is that . . .? moments built into the model, as we used a diverse array of LEGO elements including many pieces chosen to reflect Monets love of the natural world, Oom says, adding, Those unexpected parts are what make the build so enjoyable. Youre not just recreating a masterpieceyoure discovering it piece by piece.
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here.
The AI arms race may be more of an arm-twist
The big AI companies tell us that AI will soon remake every aspect of business in every industry. Many of us are left wondering when that will actually happen in the real world, when the so-called AI takeoff will arrive. But because there are so many variables, so many different kinds of organizations, jobs, and workers, theres no satisfying answer. In the absence of hard evidence, we rely on anecdotes: success stories from founders, influencers, and early adopters posting on X or TikTok.
Economists and investors are just as eager to answer the when question. They want to know how quickly AIs effects will materialize, and how much cost savings and productivity growth it will generate. Policymakers are focused on the risks: How many jobs will be lost, and which ones? What will the downstream effects be on the social safety net?
Business schools and consulting firms have turned to research to find those answers the question. One of the most consequential recent efforts was a 2025 MIT study, which found that despite spending between $30 billion and $40 billion on generative AI, 95% of large companies had seen no measurable P&L [profit and loss] impact.
More recent research paints a somewhat rosier picture. A recent study from the Wharton School found that three out of four enterprise leaders “reported positive returns on AI investments, and 88% plan to increase spending in the next year.”
My sense is that the timing of AI takeoff is hard to grasp because adoption is so uneven and depends a lot on the application of the AI. Software developers, for example, are seeing clear efficiency gains from AI coding agents, and retailers are benefiting from smarter customer-service chatbots that can resolve more issues automatically.
It also depends on the culture of the organization. Companies with clear strategies, good data, some PhDs, and internal AI enthusiasts are making real progress. I suspect that many older, less tech-oriented, companies remain stuck in pilot mode, struggling to prove ROI.
Other studies have shown that in the initial phases of deployment, human workers must invest a lot of time correcting or training AI tools, which severely limits net productivity gains. Others show that in AI-forward organizations, workers do see substantial productivity improvements, but because of that, they become more ambitious and end up working more, not less.
The MIT researchers included an interesting disclaimer on their research results. Their sobering findings, they noted, did not reflect the limitations of the AI tools themselves, but rather the fact that organizations often need years to adapt their people and processes to the new technology.
So while AI companies constantly hype the ever-growing intelligence of their models, what ultimately matters is how quickly large organizations can integrate those tools into everyday work. The AI revolution is, in this sense, more of an arm-twist than an arms race. The road to ROI runs through people and culture. And that human bottleneck may ultimately determine when the AI industry, and its backers, begin to see returns on their enormous investments.
New benchmark finds that AI fails to do most digital gig work
AI companies keep releasing smarter models at a rapid pace. But the industrys primary way of proving that progressbenchmarksdoesnt fully capture how well AI agents perform on real-world projects. A relatively new benchmark called the Remote Labor Index (RLI) tries to close that gap by testing AI agents on projects similar to those given to remote contractors. These include tasks in game development, product design, and video animation. Some of the assignments, based on actual contract jobs, would take human workers more than 100 hours to complete and cost over $10,000 in labor.
Right now, some of the industrys best models dont perform very well on the RLI. In tests conducted late last year, AI agents powered by models from the top AI developers including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and others could complete barely any of the projects. The top-performing agent, powered by Anthropics Opus 4.5 model, completed just 3.5% of the jobs. (Anthropic has since released Opus 4.6, but it hasnt yet been evaluated on the RLI.)
The test puts the question of the current applicability of agents in a different light, and may temper some of the most bullish claims about agent effectiveness coming from the AI industry.
Silicon Valleys pesky principals re-emerge, irking the White House and Pentagon
The Pentagon and the White House are big mad at the safety-conscious AI company Anthropic. Why? Because Anthropic doesnt want its AI being used for the targeting of humans by autonomous drones, or for mass surveilling U.S. citizens.
Anthropic now has a $200 million contract allowing the use of its Claude chatbot and models by federal agency workers. It was among the first companies to get approval to work with sensitive government data, and the first AI company to build a specialized model for intelligence work. But the company has long had clear rules in its user guidelines that its models arent to be used for harm.
The Pentagon believes that after paying for the technology it should be able to use it for any legal application. But acceptable use for AI is different from that for traditional software. AIs potential for autonomy makes it more dangerous by nature, and its risks increase the closer to the battle it gets used.
The disagreement, if not resolved, could potentially jeopardize Anthropic’s contract with the government. But it could get worse. Over the weekend, the Pentagon said it was considering classifying Anthropic as a supply chain risk, which would mean the government views Anthropic as roughly as trustworthy as Huawei. Government contractors of all kinds would be pushed to stop using Anthropic.
Anthropics limits n certain defense-related uses are laid out in its Constitution, a document that describes the values and behaviors it intends its models to follow. Claude, it says, should be a genuinely good, wise, and virtuous agent. We want Claude to do what a deeply and skillfully ethical person would do in Claudes position. To critics in the Trump administration, that language translates to a mandate for wokeness.
The whole dust-up harkens back to 2018, when Google dropped its Project Maven contract with the government after employees revolted against Google technology being used for targeting humans in battle. Google still works with the government, and has softened its ethical guidelines over the years.
The truth is, tech companies dont stand on principle like they used to. Many have settled into a kind of patronage relationship with the current regime, a relatively inexpensive way to avoid MAGA backlash while keeping shareholders satisfied. Anthropic, in its way, seems to be taking a different course, and it may suffer financially for it. But, in the longer term, the company could earn some respect, trust, and goodwill from many consumers and regulators. For a company whose product is as powerful and potentially dangerous as consumer AI, that could count for a lot.
More AI coverage from Fast Company:
OpenAI, Google, and Perplexity near approval to host AI directly for the U.S. government
New AI models are losing their edge almost immediately
Meta patents AI that lets dead people post from the great beyond
These 6 quotes from OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger hint at the future of personal computing
Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
As national Democrats search for a unifying theme ahead of the fall’s midterm elections, a California proposal to levy a hefty tax on billionaires is turning some of the party’s leading figures into adversaries just when Democrats can least afford division from within.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders traveled to Los Angeles on Wednesday to campaign for the tax proposal, which has Silicon Valley in an uproar, with tech titans threatening to leave the state. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is among its outspoken opponents, warning that it could leave government finances in crisis and put the state at a competitive disadvantage nationally.At an evening rally near downtown, Sanders told cheering supporters that the nation has reached a crisis point in which “massive income and wealth inequality” has concentrated power over business, technology, government and the media within the “billionaire class,” while millions of working-class Americans struggle to pay household bills.He said enactment of the proposed tax would show “we are still living in a democratic society where the people have some power.”“Enough is enough,” Sanders said to a pulse of applause. “The billionaire class cannot have it all. This nation belongs to all of us.”The senator, a democratic socialist, is popular in California he won the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in the state in a runaway. He’s been railing for decades against what he characterizes as wealthy elites and the growing gap between rich and poor.
Health care union is pushing proposed tax to fund services
A large health care union is attempting to place a proposal before voters in November that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of billionaires including stocks, art, businesses, collectibles and intellectual property to backfill federal funding cuts to health services for lower-income people that were signed by President Donald Trump last year.Debate on the proposal is unfolding at a time when voters in both parties express unease with economic conditions and what the future will bring in a politically divided nation. Distrust of government and its ability to get things done is widespread.The proposal has created a rift between Newsom and prominent members of his party’s progressive wing, including Sanders, who has said the tax should be a template for other states.“The issues that are really going to be motivating Democrats this year, affordability and the cost of health care and cuts to schools, none of these would be fixed by this proposal. If fact, they would be made worse,” said Brian Brokaw, a longtime Newsom adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax.
Split among Democrats comes as midterm elections loom
Midterm elections typically punish the party in control of the White House, and Democrats are hoping to gain enough U.S. House seats to overturn the chamber’s slim Republican majority. In California, rejiggered House districts approved by voters last year are expected to help the party pick up as many as five additional seats, which would leave Republicans in control of just a handful of districts.“It is always better for a party to have the political debate focused on issues where you are united and the other party is divided,” said Eric Schickler, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley. “Having an issue like this where Newsom and Sanders among others are on different sides is not ideal.”With the idea of taxing billionaires popular among many voters “this can be a good way for Democratic candidates to rally that side and break through from the pack,” Schickler added in an email.It’s already trickled into the race for governor and contests down the ballot. Republicans Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton, both candidates for governor, have warned the tax would erase jobs. San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, a Democratic candidate for governor, has said inequality starts at the federal level, where the tax code is riddled with loopholes.Sanders did not mention Newsom in his nearly 30-minute speech but name-checked a handful of billionaires, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, as examples of a wealthy elite that in many respects “no longer sees itself as part of American society.”
Sanders urges support for billionaires tax
Citing protests against federal immigration raids in Minnesota, he urged the crowd to support the tax, saying Californians can show that “when we stand together, we can take on the oligarchs and the billionaires.”Coinciding with the Sanders visit and an upcoming state Democratic convention this weekend, opponents are sending out targeted emails and social media ads intended to sway party insiders.It’s not clear if the proposal will make the ballot supporters must gather more than 870,000 petition signatures to place it before voters.The nascent contest already has drawn out a tangle of competing interests, with millions of dollars flowing into political committees.Newsom has long opposed state-level wealth taxes, believing such levies would be disadvantageous for the world’s fourth-largest economy. At a time when California is strapped for cash and he is considering a 2028 presidential run, he is trying to block the proposal before it reaches the ballot.Analysts say an exodus of billionaires could mean a loss of hundreds of millions of tax dollars for the nation’s most populous state. But supporters say the funding is needed to offset federal cuts that could leave many Californians without vital services.
Michael R. Blood, AP Political Writer
Baby care brand Frida is facing online backlash after screenshots of sexual innuendos in its marketing materials began circulating on social media.
Frida, which describes itself as the brand that gets parents, sells a range of baby care, fertility, and postpartum products through major retailers, including Target.
Last week, an X user shared images of several products packaging, writing: sexual jokes to market baby products is actually sick and twisted @fridababy this is absolutely appalling and disgusting. The post has since gained almost five million views on X.
Among the examples highlighted is a social media graphic promoting the companys 3-in-1 True Temp thermometer. The image shows the device next to a babys bottom, accompanied by the caption: This is the closest your husbands gonna get to a threesome.
sexual jokes to market baby products is actually sick and twisted @fridababy this is absolutely appalling and disgusting pic.twitter.com/cXhiksoaY8— stace (@staystaystace) February 12, 2026
Other screenshots highlighted by critics include phrases such as How about a quickie? printed on a thermometer box. An apparent Instagram post from 2020 that has since resurfaced also features a baby with what seems to be snot on its face. The caption reads: What happens when you pull out too early.
@pink3424 What do yall think? #fridababy #marketing #babyproducts White blank page Mumford and sons – m a r e k s
Parents and critics online have accused the company of sexualizing children in its marketing choices, with posts on parenting forums calling for boycotts of the companys products. A Change.org petition to hold Frida Baby accountable has more than 4,000 verified signatures at the time of writing.
Not everyone agrees with the criticism. IMO, this is akin to Disney putting in jokes that only parents will get, one Reddit user wrote. They know who the decision-makers are. Frida is marketing to the parents. Others argue the tone crosses a clear line.
A statement from Frida emailed to multiple publications reads in part: Our products are designed for babies, but our voice has always been written for the adults caring for them. Our intention has consistently been to make awkward and difficult experiences feel lighter, more honest, and less isolating for parents.
It continued: That said, humor is personal. Whats funny to one parent can feel like too much to another. Fast Company has reached out to Frida Baby for comment.
A scroll through Fridas social media shows the brand has long leaned into a deliberately risqué tone, often relying on double entendres and innuendo to target parents. In April, it teased a new product on Instagram with the line, Take your top off. Its current Show us what your boobs can do campaign aims to destigmatize breastfeeding by spotlighting what it calls milk-making boobs.
View this post on Instagram
As more brands adopt informal, attention-grabbing voices online, the lesson here is clear: context matters.
When Sergey Brin spoke at Stanford Universitys school of engineering centennial celebration recently, the Google co-founder was open about his career mistakes.
When you have your cool new wearable device idea, really fully bake it before you have a cool stunt involving skydiving and airships, he joked, referring to the infamous Google Glass flop. But one misstep he admitted to might surprise a lot of people who dream of the day they can quit their 9-to-5.
I actually retired like a month before COVID hit, and it was the worst decision, Brin said. He was such a failure at retirement that he has since returned to everyday work at Google, spearheading its efforts to catch up in the AI race.
Going back to work just for fun might sound like a uniquely billionaire move. But a stack of research suggests that Brins dissatisfaction in retirement and subsequent decision to return to work isnt that uncommon. His story contains an essential but often overlooked lesson that can help anyone better plan their retirement.
Why Sergey Brin unretired
Like many people, Brin had a relaxing vision for his post-working life. I was gonna sit in cafés and study physics, which was my passion at the time, he told the Stanford audience. Fate intervened in the form of Covid. But Brin wasnt dissatisfied with his retirement just because he was locked in his house all day.
I was just kind of stewing and felt myself spiraling, not being sharp, he recalled. After the Google offices partially reopened, he started going in occasionally.
Eventually, he started spending more and more time on what later became called Gemini, which is super-exciting. To be able to have that technical creative outlet, I think thats very rewarding, as opposed to if Id stayed retired. I think that wouldve been a big mistake, he added.
Retirement struggles arent just for billionaires
Brins issues with retirement are his own. More people dream of days on the golf course than pouring over physics textbooks. But Brins feelings of listlessness and intellectual decline are not at all exclusive to billionaires.
When researchers from European business school Insead surveyed entrepreneurs who had gone through a big exit and become financially independent, they discovered many decided to retire. And many soon regretted it.
It is perfectly normal to discover that life post-financial freedom isnt as happy as one might have expected it to be, the researchers summed up.
Its not just restless entrepreneurs. Another recent study of retired Japanese salarymen revealed similar patterns. Having given so much of themselves to their careers, they often felt unmoored and purposeless when they left their jobs.
Their retirement was characterized by boredomhaving nowhere to go to or having nothing to do. The sense of boredom led to a sense of isolation and low confidence in old age, explained study author Shiori Shakuto.
Adherents of the popular financial independence, retire early (FIRE) movement scrimp and sacrifice to retire early. Only for many of them to discover their dream of post-work life does not match reality. Several have written about the experience.
If youve spent decades in a career working 40 hours a week, its hard to suddenly stop working. Many early retirees feel uncomfortable feeling unproductive. As a result, they unretire to work on something meaningful. Its easy to get bored with 40 hours of extra free time a week, wrote ex-FIRE early retiree Sam Dogen in one such blog post.
A good retirement isnt all about money
All of this evidence, as well as Sergey Brins experience, point in the same direction. We tend to think of a successful retirement as a numbers game. If you save enough to be comfortable and indulge in whatever activities you enjoy, the end of working life should represent the start of the golden years.
But all the people involved in these studies were set financially. Brin has a net worth north of $200 billion. Clearly, money is not the issue. The problem is purpose.
As Brins fellow billionaire Bill Gates recently wrote: As life expectancies go up, many people are living for years and even decades after they stop working. That sounds like a luxury, and it is in a lot of waysbut it is also a lot of time to fill.
Gates fills his time with philanthropy. Brin is back to building AI. The rest of us will probably not spend our post-work years doing anything as grand. But the same truth applies. If you think only about finances and not enough about how to meaningfully fill your days in retirement, youre probably not going to enjoy yourself much.
You also might, in Brins words, feel less sharp. Science has shown having purpose helps stave off dementia as well as boosts happiness.
Sergey Brins lesson for te rest of us
This doesnt mean we should all work until we drop, of course. Instead, experts insist the essential takeaway is the need to plan for meaning as well as money.
Its never too early, or too late, to start thinking about what you would want to do after achieving financial freedom. What would you do with your money and time? the Insead researchers ask.
So the next time you check the balance of your retirement savings account, take a moment to think not just about how much you will save, but also how you will spend your time. As Sergey Brins unretirement reminds us, even billions of dollars cant guarantee you a good retirement if you dont plan for purpose in your post-work life, too.
Inc.
This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister website, Inc.com.
Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
They say job hunting is just like dating. Some are taking that advice literally.
Job market so bad Im using Hinge to find work, one job seeker posted on TikTok in December.
Sharing a look at her dating app profile, in place of a photo of her best angle, she instead uploaded a snapshot of her résumé. Answering the prompt a life goal of mine, she wrote to find work in the creative industries. Since it was posted in December, the video has gained almost a quarter of a million views.
In a recent update, the TikTok user shared that Hinge has since taken down her profile for breaking their policies. But she is not the only one.
Others are also using this unconventional method to get their profiles in front of hiring managers. One claimed to land a six-figure job from a match on Bumble.
Sometimes I use hinge to match with people in my career field and ask if theyre hiring, another posted.
Its called being resourceful, innovative and bold, they wrote in the caption.
As sites like LinkedIn are overwhelmed with applications and employers rely on AI résumé screeners, applicants are finding creative ways to get their foot in the door. In a recent Glassdoor community pool, 29% of respondents said that they were using or considered using dating apps for career purposes.
While networking on dating apps isnt new, it appears to be a growing trend. A ResumeBuilder.com survey of about 2,200 U.S. dating site customers in October also found a third of dating app users had used the platforms for job or career-related purposes in the past year. Nearly one in 10 say it was the primary reason they used dating apps, with the most common platforms being Tinder, Bumble, and Facebook Dating.
Its not just those hoping to break into entry-level positions. Almost half of those using dating apps for job-related purposes reported incomes of more than $200,000.
For many, the strategy has paid off43% say they gained mentorship or career advice from networking on the apps, while 39% landed an interview, 37% received a referral or lead, and 37% received a job offer.
One survey participant called the new job-hunting practice weird but effective, while another said, It worked, but you need the audacity to ask.
Of course, the lines quickly become blurred when seeking employment in an environment designed for hookups and romantic pursuits. Especially if theres a power balance at play.
But desperate times call for desperate measures.
It now takes more than 23 weeks on average for an unemployed person in the U.S. to find a new job. For one in four unemployed people, or 1.8 million Americans, they are still job hunting six months later.
Long-term unemployment is now at its highest level in three years. Under these circumstances, its no surprise job seekers are turning to any means necessary to find new connections.
And hey, its better than the inverse: anyone using LinkedIn as a personal dating pool.
The annual NFL tradition of firing the head coach as the season ends continues. This year, 10 top coaches got the axe, a staggering 31% of all NFL coaches. And they include football legends like John Harbaugh, after 18 seasons with the Baltimore Ravens, and Sean McDermott, who took the Buffalo Bills to the playoffs in eight out of nine seasons.
Firing the head coachjust like firing the CEO in the business worldis the easy answer, and it looks good in the media: decisive, forward-looking, taking action. But, most times, this act alone falls short of fixing the problems that contributed to an organizations failures.
PART OF A SYSTEM
In reality, the CEO is part of a system, and its the system that matters. You can have a B player CEO with a great team and board and deliver significant performance and culture gains. Alternatively, you can have an A player CEO with a weak board and team and fail spectacularly. If you only focus on fixing the CEO, youre not focused on the right problem and cant get to the right solution.
Yet CEO turnover is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to a 2026 Spencer Stuart study reported in The Wall Street Journal. In fact, approximately one in nine CEOs were replaced in 1,500 large companies in 2025, including the CEOs of Disney, HP, Lululemon, PayPal and Procter & Gamble.
Disney illustrates the downside of this. Just ask Bob Chapek. Sure, he had a rough three years as CEO of Walt Disney Co. before the board summarily fired him and brought back his predecessor, Bob Iger. Disney stock, at $125 a share when Chapek took over in February 2020, had fallen almost 40% to $90 by the time he got the axe on November 20, 2022. Iger arguably is one of the best CEOs in decades, and he rebuilt the company with incredibly successful acquisitions (Pixar, Marvel Entertainment, Star Wars, the Muppets). But his two years back at the top were less than stellar: Disney shares are up 17% since he took over, while the S&P media and entertainment index rose 99% in the same period.
Obviously, Chapek alone wasnt the problem, just as Iger alone wasnt the solution. Rarely is the executive at the very top solely responsible for what went wrong. It owes to a multitude of weaknesses: illogical organization models, conflicting agendas, turf battles, reporting structures that dont align with the company strategy, and communication lapses.
There is rarely an objective assessment done ensuring the board is aligned with a new CEO or a new market entry for what success looks like, and the structures and talent required to achieve that success. This is especially true in the unforgiving and bottom-line-obsessed world of private equity (PE). The biggest myth in PE (and pro football) is that if you get the CEO right, and you get the strategy right, you will get the numbers you want on the scoreboard.
Every CEO is encumbered by their surroundings. A PE board is possibly 50% of the CEOs success or failure, and in my experience, a lack of alignment between how each part defines success is a root issue. Leaders of PE-funded businesses must also operate under very compressed timeframes that leave little room for exiling and replacing a CEO. By the time the CEO has been exiled, it can be even harderor too lateto drive a successful outcome.
A TEAM APPROACH
This is why, again, even B player CEOs with strong teams and supportive boards find success, while A-rated commanders often falter with the wrong organization structure and fractured boards. The CEO is but one part of a whole system that must play well together, including the board, key team members, business partners, core customers, and suppliers.
Yet highly intelligent and competitive people often miss their biggest and most controllable opportunity to ensure their CEO is positioned for success. That is to better manage their own decision-making, accountability, and communication as board members and teammates and ensure the organization is designed for success.
Alice Mann is founder and CEO of Mann Partners.
