Egg producers blame the bird flu outbreak for driving prices to record highs, but critics believe giant companies are taking advantage of their market dominance to profit handsomely at the expense of budget-conscious egg buyers.Advocacy groups, Democratic lawmakers and a Federal Trade Commission member are calling for a government investigation after egg prices spiked to a record average of $4.95 per dozen this month. The Trump administration did unveil a plan this week to combat bird flu, but how much that might ease egg pricesa key driver of inflationremains to be seen.“Donald Trump promised to lower food prices on ‘Day One’, but with egg prices skyrocketing out of control, he fired the workers charged with containing bird flu. Working families need relief now,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement.
What’s behind the record egg prices?
The industry, and most experts, squarely blame bird flu. More than 166 million birds have been slaughtered to contain the virus. Some 30 million egg layers have been wiped out just since January, significantly disrupting egg supplies. The Department of Agriculture’s longstanding policy has been to kill entire flocks anytime the virus is found on a farm.As a result, the number of egg layers has dropped nationwide by about 12% from before the outbreak to 292 million birds, according to a February 1 USDA estimate, but another 11 million egg layers have been killed since then, so it’s likely worse. When prices spiked to $4.82 two years ago and prompted initial calls for price gouging probes, the flock was above 300 million.“This has nothing to do with anything other than bird flu. And I think to suggest anything else is a misreading of the facts and the reality,” American Egg Board President Emily Metz said.“Our farmers are in the fight of their lives, period, full stop. And they’re doing everything they can to keep these birds safe,” Metz said. “This is a supply challenge. Due to bird flu. Nothing else.”Farm Action suspects monopolistic behavior. The group that lobbies on behalf of smaller farmers, consumers, and rural communities notes that egg production is only down about 4% from last year and some 7.57 billion table eggs were produced last month, yet some consumers are still finding egg shelves empty at their local grocery stores.“Dominant egg corporations are blaming avian flu for the price hikes that we’re seeing. But while the egg supply has fallen only slightly, these companies profits have soared,” said Angela Huffman, Farm Action’s president. The Justice Department acknowledged receiving the group’s letter calling for an investigation but declined to comment on it.The fact that a jury ruled in 2023 that major egg producers used various means to limit the domestic supply of eggs to increase the price of products during the 2000s only adds to the doubts about their motives now.
What do the numbers show?
Retail egg prices had generally remained below $2 per dozen for years before this outbreak began. Prices have more than doubled since then, boosting profits for egg producers even as they deal with soaring costs.Most of the dominant producers are privately held companies and don’t release their results. But the biggest, Cal-Maine Foods, which supplies about 20% of the nation’s eggs, is public, and its profits increased dramatically. Cal-Maine reported a $219 million profit in the most recent quarter when its eggs sold for an average of $2.74 per dozen, up from just $1.2 million in the quarter just before this outbreak began in early 2022 when its eggs were selling for $1.37 per dozen.Sherman Miller, Cal-Maine’s president and CEO, said in reporting the numbers that higher market prices “have continued to rise this fiscal year as supply levels of shell eggs have been restricted due to recent outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza.”But he said Cal-Maine also sold significantly more eggssome 330 million dozens, up from 288 million the year beforein the quarter because demand is so strong and Cal-Maine has made a number of acquisitions. Cal-Maine also suffered few outbreaks on its farms, outside of a couple facilities in Kansas and Texas. The Mississippi-based company didn’t respond to calls from the Associated Press.
What about production costs?
Economists and analysts say the record egg prices aren’t a sure sign of something nefarious, and short-term profits might only last until farms get hit. Once a flock is slaughtered, it can take as long as a year to clean a farm and raise new birds to egg-laying age. The USDA pays farmers for every bird killed, but it doesn’t cover all the costs for farmers as they go without income.“The consumer, I think, will probably feel like they’re getting the rough end of the stick. But I guarantee you, the farmers that are having to depopulate the barns, they’re having a rougher time,” CoBank analyst Brian Earnest said.Inflation in the costs of feed and fuel and labor have contributed to rising egg prices, and farmers have been investing in biosecurity measures to help keep the virus away. So production costs also appear to be at an all-time high, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ producer price index.“This isn’t a case where they’re taking the price up to gouge the market. It is the price is going up through auction at wholesale. And they’re benefiting from higher prices because supplies are tight,” University of Arkansas agricultural economist Jada Thompson said.
Josh Funk, AP Business Writer
After filing for bankruptcy protection and being nearly obliterated in the process, discount retail chain Big Lots is getting closer to determining the timeline for its path forward, the brand’s new owner has confirmed with Fast Company.
Variety Wholesalers, the North Carolina-based retail company that is seeking to take control of hundreds of Big Lots locationsmostly in the South and Midwestnow has a tentative plan in place for the “soft openings” of many of those stores, according to a spokesperson.
Although a bankruptcy filing earlier this month identified 200 locations that are expected to be transferred to Variety, not all of the stores have been assigned yet by the courts.
The locations that do ultimately move forward are likely to be dark for a period of weeks or even months following the transfer of their leases as Variety determines what preparations or alterations are needed for each location. Big Lots, which had more than 800 locations before it filed for bankruptcy, has been in the process of closing stores and holding going-out-of-business sales for months.
Openings expected from early April through early June
Soft opening dates for the Big Lots stores that go forward under Variety Wholesalers are expected to begin in early April and go through early June, according to Jeff King, Variety’s vice president of sales and marketing, although the timeline could still change.
The openings are expected to be completed in four separate “waves,” but Variety is still determining which wave will be assigned to certain stores as the bankruptcy process continues. The company said it will share the full list when it becomes available.
The states with the most Big Lots locations that are expected to move forward include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Privately held Variety Wholesalers is the parent company of Roses, Maxway, Super 10, and other discount retail chains. Late last year, it announced plans to take over at least 200 Big Lots locations as part of a last-minute deal with Gordon Brothers, the liquidation firm that has been managing store closures.
Big Lots had previously said that it would close every location.
Matt Ries has lived in Florida only three years, but everyone told him last summer was unusually hot. That was followed by three hurricanes in close succession. Then temperatures dropped below freezing for days this winter, and snow blanketed part of the state.To Ries, 29, an Ohio native now in Tampa, the extreme weatherincluding the bitter coldbore all the hallmarks of climate change.“To me it’s just kind of obvious,” said Ries, a project manager for an environmental company and self-described conservative-leaning independent. “Things are changing pretty drastically; just extreme weather all across the country and the world. . . . I do think humans are speeding up that process.”About 8 in 10 U.S. adults say they have experienced some kind of extreme weather in recent years, according to a new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, with about half saying they’ve been personally affected by severe cold weather or severe winter storms.Among those saying severe cold was among the types of extreme weather they experienced, about three-quarters say climate change is at least a partial cause of those eventssuggesting that many understand global warming can create an unstable atmosphere that allows cold air from the Arctic to escape farther south more often.Midwesterners are most likely to feel the brunt of the cold weather, with about 7 in 10 adults who live in the Midwest experiencing severe cold in the past five years, compared with about half of residents of the South and the Northeast and about one-third of those in the West, the survey found.“It’s counterintuitive to think, ‘Oh, gee, it’s really cold. That probably has something to do with global warming,'” said Liane Golightly-Kissner, of Delaware, Ohio, north of Columbus, who believes climate change is influencing many weather extremes.Golightly-Kissner, 38, said it was so cold this winter that schools were closed and her family let faucets drip to prevent burst pipes. She remembers one extremely cold day when she was a child in Michigan, but she says now it seems to happen more often and over multiple days.The poll also found that, while only about one-quarter of U.S. adults feel climate change has had a major impact on their lives so far, about 4 in 10 think it will in their lifetimesincluding on their health, local air quality, and water availability. About half of adults under age 30 believe climate change will impact them personally.About 7 in 10 U.S. adults believe climate change is occurring, and they are much more likely to think it has had or will have a major impact on them than those who say climate change isn’t happening.Americans are catching on, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, who credits a combination of media coverage, political leaders speaking up, and public concerns that creates a “symbiotic relationship.”“We have seen growing awareness among the American people that climate change is affecting them here and now,” though many still see it as a distant problem that their grandchildren will have to worry about, he said.Rosiland Lathan, 60, of Minden, Louisiana, said she’s a believer because it seems that summers are getting hotter and winters colderincluding a couple years ago, when snow and ice kept her car stuck at work for several days.This winter, she said, there was a stretch of temperatures in the teens and 20s, while a couple of summers ago, it got “real, real hot” with highs in the 100s.“It’s normally hot in Louisiana, but not that hot,” Lathan said.Hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters, like the devastating Southern California fires, also have many concerned that climate change could lead to higher property insurance premiums and household energy costs.About 6 in 10 U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” concerned about increasing property insurance premiums, and just over half are similarly concerned about climate change’s impact on energy costs, the AP-NORC survey found. About half are “extremely” or “very” concerned that climate change will increase costs for local emergency responders and infrastructure costs for government. Republicans are less worried than Democrats and independents.The survey also found broad support for a range of measures to help people who live in areas becoming more susceptible to extreme weather and natural disasters, with the exception of restricting new construction in these communities.About 6 in 10 U.S. adults said they “somewhat” or “strongly” favor providing money to local residents to help them rebuild in the same community after disasters strike, while similar shares support providing money to make residents’ property more resistant to natural disasters and providing homeowners’ insurance to people who cannot get private insurance. About one-quarter of Americans neither favor nor oppose each of these proposals, while around 1 in 10 are “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed.When it comes to restricting new construction, opinion is more divided. About 4 in 10 “somewhat” or “strongly” favor restricting new construction in areas that are especially vulnerable to natural disasters, about 4 in 10 have a neutral view and about 2 in 10 are “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed.Golightly-Kissner said she believes there should be rebuilding restrictions or tougher building standards in disaster-prone areas.“These extreme weather conditions, they’re not going anywhere, and it would be hubris for us to continue in the same way,” she said. “I think we we have to change. We have to look toward the future and what’s the best way to keep our lives together when this happens again. Because it’s really not a question of if, it’s when.”
Webber reported from Fenton, Michigan. _ The AP-NORC poll of 1,112 adults was conducted Feb. 6-10, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. _The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Tammy Webber and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, Associated Press
Back in the day, philosophers werent just deep thinkersthey were the ones shaping society, questioning the status quo, and pushing humanity forward. They didnt just sit around pondering big ideas; they were the architects of real change.
Fast forward to today, and while we celebrate speed, innovation, and getting things done, we often forget to pause and ask the bigger questions: Why? What if?
In a world thats more complex than everwhere technology is evolving at breakneck speed, society feels increasingly divided, and global challenges loom largewe need to bring back deep thinking. The future depends on bold, unconventional minds willing to challenge the norm, embrace nuance, and seek real transformation instead of just quick fixes.
The case for a renaissance of thought
In 2023, a World Economic Forum survey found that 50% of global leaders felt “overwhelmed” by the pace of change, while only 23% believed their organizations were prepared to handle future challenges. Simultaneously, a Gallup study revealed that only 33% of employees feel engaged at work, signaling a lack of meaningful connection in professional environments.
These statistics underline a truth that feels almost countercultural in an age of immediate gratification: we are collectively running fast, but toward what? We have more data than ever before, yet we struggle to interpret it meaningfully. We are more connected digitally, yet we feel increasingly isolated. Its not just technology we need to master but the thinking required to shape its purpose and impact.
Reflection on my own experience
I learned the power of reflection the hard way. Early in my career, I was driven by achievementalways focused on the next milestone, the next goal, the next thing that needed to be done. I equated movement with progress. But at one point, despite all the success, I felt unfulfilled. It wasnt burnout exactlyit was a realization that I was optimizing for speed rather than impact.
I decided to do something radical: I deliberately slowed down. I took time to step back from the work itself and deeply reflect on what truly mattered to me. What kind of leader did I want to be? What legacy was I building? What problems was I solving, and were they the ones that really needed solving?
The insights that emerged from that reflective period didnt just change the trajectory of my workthey changed how I approached everything. I started asking better questions. Instead of just striving for efficiency, I focused on significance. Instead of merely executing, I became intentional about impact. That shift unlocked a level of innovation I hadnt accessed beforenot because I was doing more, but because I was thinking differently.
What happens when deep thinking is lost
Think about how social media started out. It was supposed to bring people together, connect the world, and make communication easier. And in many ways, it did. But along the way, its also fueled polarization, spread misinformation, and taken a toll on mental health. The focus was all about growing fast and scaling upwithout much time spent questioning the bigger picture.
What if, from the start, we had asked tougher questions about how these platforms might shape society? What if deep thinkers and contrarians had been part of the conversationnot to slow things down, but to make sure innovation actually worked for the greater good?
Outlier thinkers in action
Big shifts in history have often come from people willing to challenge the norm. Consider Rachel Carsonwhen she wrote Silent Spring in 1962, she wasnt just questioning pesticides; she was sparking an entire environmental movement. Or Bertrand Russell, who didnt just study philosophy and mathhis ideas shaped everything from education to politics to science.
More recently, theres Tristan Harris, a former Google design ethicist who started calling out the addictive nature of tech platforms long before most people realized the impact. These kinds of thinkers remind us that progress isnt just about what we buildits about how and why we build it.
A framework for outlier thinking
To foster a culture of deep thinking and contrarian innovation, individuals and organizations can adopt the following framework:
Question the Obvious: Encourage an environment where its not only acceptable but expected to challenge assumptions. For example, instead of asking, How do we grow faster? ask, Should we be growing in this direction at all? Shift the focus from optimization to purpose.
Embrace Intellectual Humility: Outlier thinkers are not afraid to admit what they dont know. This humility creates space for exploration and allows leaders to approach problems with curiosity rather than preconceptions. Studies from Harvard Business School show that intellectual humility is correlated with better decision-making and more collaborative teams.
Slow Down to Think Deeply: Allocate time for what philosopher Blaise Pascal called “sitting quietly in a room.” This doesnt mean abandoning productivity but recognizing that reflection is an investment in clearer, more impactful actions.
Diversify Perspectives: Surround yourself with people who challenge your thinking rather than reinforce it. Philosopher John Stuart Mill argued that encountering opposing views sharpens understanding and fosters better solutions. Create opportunities for debate and collaboration with diverse thinkers.
Focus on Long-Term Impact: Resist the allure of short-term wins. Ask questions about legacy and unintended consequences, such as What ripple effects could this decision have in 10 years? This lens can help avoid the pitfalls of reactive thinking and promote sustainable innovation.
Bringing back deep thinking doesnt mean hitting pause on actionit just means making sure that action actually matters. Its not about making more decisions; its about making better ones. Its not about getting answers faster; its about asking the right questions.
For leaders, entrepreneurs, and anyone trying to create real change, thinking differently isnt just a personal challengeits a shared responsibility. We need the courage to ask the questions others avoid, to look beyond the obvious, and to inspire others to do the same. As Nietzsche put it, He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. In a world full of complexity, finding our collective why might be the most important thing we do.
Pop culture subreddit r/Fauxmoi is facing accusations of defamation from YouTuber and podcaster Ethan Klein.
Klein first rose to internet fame through his YouTube channel, h3h3Productions, which he co-created with his wife, Hila Klein. The channel now boasts 5.71 million subscribers. The Kleins caught the attention of r/Fauxmoia subreddit inspired by the popular Instagram story page Deuxmoiafter Hila shared an Instagram story claiming that a potential collaboration fell apart due to antisemitism. In response, the subreddit was flooded with posts resurfacing alleged problematic behavior and controversial language used by the Kleins on camera.
Ethan fired back at r/Fauxmoi, sharing the subreddit post with his two million Instagram followers, comparing the subreddit to a neo-Nazi forum. According to a follow-up post on r/Fauxmoi, Klein then escalated the situation further by going live on YouTube, where he launched into a tirade against multiple subredditsincluding r/Fauxmoiclaiming he was being mass gaslighted and declaring, Ive never seen anyone in the history of the internet be harassed like this. Klein went on to say that the criticism against him was so extreme that Russian propagandists would blush at the hate campaign going against us.
During the livestream, Klein also issued veiled threats, saying, A lot of these people think theyre safe, but they will soon find out theyre not, while hinting that hes preparing stuff and working behind the scenes. He urged his followers to stand back and stand by because theres something in the works that I just cant wait for.
In an interview with Kate Lindsay, who writes the Embedded Substack and co-hosts Slates podcast ICYMI, one of the lead moderators of r/Fauxmoi, an anonymous college student from Canada, describes how the situation has escalated to the point where two moderators were forced to delete their accounts due to the harassment and doxxing threats they were receiving.
Most people discussed on the subreddit have meaningful public reputations to maintain, and this means that pursuing petty claims against social media users and engaging in conspiracy theories is perceived as being beneath their station, the mod told Lindsay. When it comes to influencers (particularly those whose content is based largely on engagement and feuds rather than substance), they are often more sensitive regarding their reputations, and have less PR and business savvy. (Neither Klein nor Reddit responded to Fast Company‘s request for comment.)
But can a subreddit even be sued for defamation? Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that online service providers cannot be held liable for content posted by users. This means that platforms like Reddit are not considered publishers of user-generated content. However, its still possible to sue for unfair content moderation. What this saga means for free speech on the internet, and the right to gossip and share information online, remains to be seen.
Autodesk forecast annual revenue and profit above Wall Street estimates on Thursday, boosted by strong demand for its design and engineering software across industries such as construction and manufacturing.
The company also said it would reduce its workforce by about 9%, representing roughly 1,350 employees, and laid out plans to invest more heavily in cloud and artificial intelligence, adding that it would reallocate resources towards those areas.
Companies across sectors such as architecture, engineering, construction, and product design are making extensive use of Autodesk’s 3D design solutions, with the software maker’s artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities further driving spending on its products.
Autodesk saw a 23% jump in total billings to $2.11 billion in the fourth quarter ended January 31.
The company’s international operations have particularly shown strength, while analysts have also noted that the company was outpacing peers in the manufacturing sector, driven by the performance of its “Fusion” design software.
Shares of the San Francisco, California-based company were up about 2% in extended trading.
Autodesk expects full-year revenue between $6.90 billion and $6.97 billion, largely above analysts’ average estimate of $6.90 billion, according to data compiled by LSEG.
It projected an adjusted profit between $9.34 and $9.67 per share for its fiscal year 2026, also above the $9.24 per share estimated by analysts.
The company reported total revenue of $1.64 billion in the fourth quarter, up 12% from last year and above analysts’ average estimate of $1.63 billion. It posted an adjusted profit of $2.29 per share, beating estimates of $2.14 per share.
Deborah Sophia, Reuters
Its an understatement to say that cryptocurrency investors have not had a great week. Tokens across the board have seen double-digit falls, slashing thousands from their individual values. However, one of the most affected coins this week is also the worlds most popular cryptocurrency: Bitcoin.
In the past five days alone, Bitcoins value has dropped more than 16%, and today, the coin fell below an important psychological barrier. Heres what you need to know about the likely reasons why Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are dropping.
Bitcoin falls below $80,000
In early trading this morning, Bitcoin fell below the psychologically important $80,000 barrier. At the time of this writing, it is currently trading at around $79,900 per coin, though it had dropped to as low as around $78,400 earlier.
When Bitcoin moves across a notable barrier like $60,000 or $100,000 (any increment of $10,000), it generally causes one of two reactions. If its move is increasing past the barrier, this tends to send optimism through the hearts of investorsHow high can it go? However, if its move falls under the barrier, this tends to generate fear and pessimismHow low can it go?
What is startling about Bitcoins fall is that the coin was trading above $95,000 at the beginning of this week. But by Tuesday, Bitcoin had fallen below the $90,000 threshold. Now, just three days later, Bitcoin has fallen below $80,000.
That means that as of the time of this writing, Bitcoin has lost about 16% of its value in the past five days alone. But it has gotten worse when looking out over the past month. During that time, Bitcoin lost more than 20% of its value. Bitcoin hasnt traded this low since shortly after President Trump won the election in November 2024.
But its not just Bitcoin that is falling.
Ethereum, XRP, DOGE, and TRUMP all down
As of the time of this writing, other major cryptocurrencies and popular meme coins have all been down by a significant amount in the past day, according to data from Yahoo Finance and CoinMarketCap.
Ethereum is down over 9% in the past 24 hours (and down over 24% in the past five days).
XRP is down over 8.6% in the past 24 hours (and down over 20% in the past five days)
Solana is down over 4% in the past 24 hours (and down over 20% in the past five days)
Dogecoin is down over 10% in the past 24 hours (and down over 23% in the past five days)
Official Trump is down over 13% in the past 24 hours (and down over 33% in the past seven days)
Why are Bitcoin and other crypto dropping?
When major assets drop, the first thing people want to know is why? Unfortunately, there are no firm answers to that, but there are two likely reasons why Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are seeing increased downward pressure this week.
The first is Trumps tariffs. The president says he plans to levy tariffs on goods coming into the United States from many of Americas major trading partners, including Mexico, Canada, China, and EU member states.
Those countries, in turn, are expected to retaliate with tariffs on American goods, which could result in an all-out trade war that leads to higher prices for consumers, more rapid inflation, and reduced household discretionary spending.
In other words, people are worried that Trumps tariffs could negatively affect the economy. When the economy faces headwinds, investors tend to pull out of riskier and more volatile assetslike cryptocurrenciesin favor of placing their money into more stable assets.
The second reason that may be contributing to cryptos fall this week is the ByBit hack from earlier this month that saw hackers steal $1.5 billion worth of cryptocurrencies.
That heist, which is believed to be the largest ever crypto heist, has rattled crypto investors, making many feel that their cryptocurrency investments arent as secure as other investments, like stocks and properties.
In other words, recent significant events are working against crypto’s favor. As for where Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies go from here, thats anyones guess.
As President Donald Trump’s administration looks to reverse a cornerstone finding that climate change endangers human health and welfare, scientists say they just need to look around because it’s obvious how bad global warming is and how it’s getting worse.
New research and ever more frequent extreme weather further prove the harm climate change is doing to people and the planet, 11 different scientists, experts in health and climate, told the Associated Press soon after word of the administration’s plans leaked out Wednesday. They cited peer-reviewed studies and challenged the Trump administration to justify its own effort with science.
There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health, said Brown University climate scientist Kim Cobb. Its simple physics coming up against simple physiology and biology, and the limits of our existing infrastructure to protect us against worsening climate-fueled extremes.
EPA’s original finding on danger of greenhouse gases
Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin has privately pushed the White House for a rewrite of the agencys finding that planet-warming greenhouse gases put the public in danger. The original 52-page decision in 2009 is used to justify and apply regulations and decisions on heat-trapping emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas.
Carbon dioxide is the very essence of a dangerous air pollutant. The health evidence was overwhelming back in 2009 when EPA reached its endangerment finding, and that evidence has only grown since then, said University of Washington public health professor Dr. Howard Frumkin, who as a Republican appointee headed the National Center for Environmental Health at the time. “CO2 pollution is driving catastrophic heat waves and storms, infectious disease spread, mental distress, and numerous other causes of human suffering and preventable death.
That 2009 science-based assessment cited climate change harming air quality, food production, forests, water quality and supplies, sea level rise, energy issues, basic infrastructure, homes, and wildlife.
A decade later, scientists document growing harm
Ten years later, a group of 15 scientists looked at the assessment. In a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Science they found that in nearly all those categories the scientific confidence of harm increased and more evidence was found supporting the growing danger to people. And the harms were worse than originally thought in the cases of public health, water, food, and air quality.
Those scientists also added four new categories where they said the science shows harm from climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Those were in national security, economic well-being of the country, violence, and oceans getting more acidic.
On national security, the science team quoted Trump’s then-defense secretary, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and a Pentagon authorization bill that Trump signed in his first term. It also quoted a study that said another 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) of warming in the next 75 years would effectively reduce the U.S. gross domestic product by 3%, while another study said warming would cost the American economy $4.7 trillion to $10.4 trillion by the end of the century.
Overall, the scientific support for the endangerment finding was very strong in 2009. It is much, much stronger now, Stanford University environment program chief Chris Field, a co-author of the 2019 Science review, said in a Wednesday email. “Based on overwhelming evidence from thousands of studies, the well-mixed greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare. There is no question.
Long list of climate change’s threats to health
There is global consensus that climate change is the biggest threat of our to time to both health and health systems, said Dr. Courtney Howard, a Canadian emergency room physician and vice chair of the Global Climate and Health Alliance. He ticked off a long list: heat-related illnesses, worsening asthma, heart diseases worsened by wildfire smoke, changing habit for disease-carrying mosquitoes, ticks and other insects, and crop failures that drive hunger, war, and migration.
Kristie Ebi, a public health and climate scientist at the University of Washington, said a big but little-discussed issue is how crops grown under higher carbon dioxide levels have less protein, vitamins, and nutrients. That’s 85% of all plants, and that affects public health, she said. Field experiments have shown wheat and rice grown under high CO2 have 10% less protein, 30% less B-vitamins and 5% less micronutrients.
It’s these indirect effects on human health that are far-reaching, comprehensive and devastating, said Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech and chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy. She said rising carbon dioxide levels in the air even affect our ability to think and process information.
Scientists said the Trump administration will be hard-pressed to find scientific justificationor legitimate scientiststo show how greenhouse gases are not a threat to people.
This one of those cases where they cant contest the science and theyre going to have a legal way around,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said.
The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Seth Borenstein, AP science writer
Associated Press writer Matthew Daly contributed.
Recently, I overheard a conversation at a local coffee shop:Thank god for the new administration and finally taking a stand against DEI, said one of the men to another, as they sipped their coffee. Its ridiculous and unfair, completely ruining work. We can finally get back to business.”
I leaned in a bit further to try and listen in as I paid for my Earl Gray tea.
Well . . . Im not sure thats entirely true, the other man said hesitating. I think that . . .
Finally, we can get back to raising standards, the other individual interrupted. Its about time! By the way, are you going to the game next week?
The other individual looked uncomfortable as the conversation swiftly shifted in a completely different direction. While I was done paying, and also done eavesdropping, I left knowing that what I heard in this local coffee shop was not an isolated conversation.
The backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion is playing out on the national and world stage almost every single day. And the backlash is also taking place on much smaller stages, in conversations in our conference rooms and in our hallways, amongst colleagues loudly and in whispers in our workplaces. And in these conversations, theres an opportunity to talk and educate each other about what diversity, equity, and inclusion is and what diversity, equity, and inclusion is not.
Here are three of the most common statements I am hearing from individuals for the case against diversity, equity, and inclusion, and heres how we can debunk these statements and continue to help educate each other on what is true and what is not.
False argument against DEI: We lower our standards when it comes to talent
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is not about lowering our standards; diversity, equity, and inclusion is about setting fair and equitable standards on how we evaluate all talent. The term DEI hire is being used to make us believe that we have lowered standards by hiring individuals from different backgrounds and different lived experiences. In reality, DEI hire is a harmful and a hurtful phrase that leads many to believe that someone was handed a job simply because they may look different or be different or are a quota hire. And it is increasingly becoming an acceptable way to discredit, demoralize, and disrespect leaders of color.
One of the key outcomes of diversity, equity, and inclusion is creating standardized processes on how we hire talent, and also on who we choose to develop and promote. This includes using software tools like Greenhouse, which helps you ensure that every candidate for a role meets with the same set of interviewers, that interview questions are aligned in advance, and that theres a way to evaluate and score the interviews and debrief together as an interview team. Otherwise, we fall prey to our biases and may hire people who look like us, think like us, and act like us, or simply hire them because we really just like them.
When it comes to how we develop and promote talent, software tools like Lattice help us ensure we set clear and reasonable goals for all, and not just some employees. We can then track progress in weekly meetings, we can give and receive coaching and feedback, and we can have a consistent framework when we evaluate talent during performance review time. And how we evaluate talent is also then connected to how we compensate individuals, and ultimately who we chose to promote. Without these standardized processes, we may end up giving better performance reviews and more money to those who are the most vocal, who spend the most time managing up to us, and who we just find ourselves having more in common with. Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts help us raise standards and make sure we are getting the best out of our talent.
False argument against DEI: It distracts ourselves from driving revenue
Diversity, equity, and inclusion does not distract us from leading our businesses; in fact, diversity, equity, and inclusion is a driver of the business. Its not a separate initiative that sits apart from the business; it should be integrated into everything we do in our workplaces. These efforts not only help us ensure that we get the best out of our talent, but it also ensures we are able to best serve our customers.
According to Procter & Gamble, the buying power of the multicultural consumer is more than $5 trillion. Procter & Gamble reminds us that its no longer multicultural marketing; its in fact mainstream marketing. There is growth to be had when we ensure we connect and authentically serve not just the multicultural consumer, but also veterans, individuals with disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community, and many more communities. Understanding their consumer needs and how your businesses products and services can surprise and delight them, and enhance the quality of their lives, is an untapped competitive advantage. Companies like E.L.F. understand this, with a strong focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that have paid off: It has posted 23 consecutive quarters of sales growth. Over the past five years, the company has also seen its stock increased by more 700%.
In contrast, since Target announced a roll back on its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, its experienced a decline in sales. Black church leaders are now calling on their congregations to participate in a 40 day boycott of Target. Black consumers have $2 trillion in buying power, setting digital trends and engagement.
We’ve got to tell corporate America that there’s a consequence for turning their back on diversity,” said Bishop Reginald T. Jackson, to USA Today. So let us send the message that if corporate America can’t stand with us, we’re not going to stand with corporate America.
False argument against DEI: An inclusive work environment only benefits a few
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is not about creating an inclusive environment for a select few. Diversity, equity, and inclusion is about creating workplaces where we all have an opportunity to reach our potntial and help our companies reach their potential. In my book, Reimagine Inclusion: Debunking 13 Myths to Transform Your Workplace, I tackle the myth that diversity, equity, and inclusion processes and policies only have a positive effect on a certain group of individuals. I share The Curb-Cut Effect which is a prime example of this.
In 1972, faced with pressure from activists advocating for individuals with disabilities, the city of Berkeley, California, installed its first official curb cut at an intersection on Telegraph Avenue. In the words of a Berkeley advocate, the slab of concrete heard round the world. This not only helped people in wheelchairs. It also helped parents pushing strollers, elderly with walkers, travelers wheeling luggage, workers pushing heavy carts, and the curb cut helped skateboarders and runners. People went out of their way and continued to do so, to use a curb cut. The Curb-Cut Effect shows us that one action targeted to help a community ended up helping many more people than anticipated.
So, in our workplaces, policies like flexible work hours and remote work options, parental leave and caregiver assistance, time off for holidays and observances, adaptive technologies, mental health support, accommodations for individuals with disabilities, and more have a ripple effect and create workplaces where everyone has an opportunity to thrive.
Dont fall for the rhetoric against DEI being exclusive, unfair, or a distraction. The goal of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts has always been about leveling the playing field and ensuring we are creating workplaces where each and everyone of us have an opportunity to succeed.
The notion of authenticity in the movies has moved a step beyond the merely realistic. More and more, expensive and time-consuming fixes to minor issues of screen realism have become the work of statistical data renderingsthe visual or aural products of generative artificial intelligence. Deployed for effects that actors used to have to create themselves, with their own faces, bodies, and voices, filmmakers now deem these fixes necessary because they are more authentic than what actors can do with just their imaginations, wardrobe, makeup, and lighting. The paradox is that in this scenario, authentic means inhuman: The further from actual humanity these efforts have moved, the more we see them described by filmmakers as perfect.
Is perfect the enemy of good? It doesnt seem to matter to many filmmakers working today. These fixes are designed to be imperceptible to humans, anyway. Director Brady Corbets obsession with perfect Hungarian accents in his Oscar-nominated architecture epic, The Brutalist, is a case in point. Corbet hired the Ukraine-based software company Respeecher to enhance accents by using AI to smooth out vowel sounds when actors Adrien Brody and Felicity Jones (American and British, respectively) speak Hungarian in the film. Corbet said it was necessary to do that because, as he told the Los Angeles Times, this was the only way for us to achieve something completely authentic.
Authenticity here meant integrating the voice of the films editor, Dávid Jánsco, who accurately articulated the correct vowel sounds. Jánscos pronunciation was then combined with the audio track featuring Brody and Jones, merging them into a purportedly flawless rendition of Hungarian that would, in Corbets words in an interview with GQ, honor the nation of Hungary by making all of their off-screen Hungarian dialogue absolutely perfect.
The issue of accents in movies has come to the fore in recent years. Adam Driver and Shailene Woodley were, for instance, criticized for their uncertain Italian accents in 2023s Ferrari. Corbet evidently wanted to make sure that would not happen if any native Hungarian speakers were watching The Brutalist (few others would notice the difference). At times, Brody and Jones speak in Hungarian in the film, but mostly they speak in Hungarian-accented English. According to Corbet, Respeecher was not used for that dialogue.
Lets say that for Corbet this will to perfection, with the time and expense it entailed, was necessary to his process, and that having the voice-overs in translated Hungarian-accented English might have been insultingly inauthentic to the people of Hungary, making it essential that the movie sound, at all times, 100% correct when Hungarian was spoken. Still, whether the Hungarian we hear in The Brutalist is absolutely perfect is not the same as it being completely authentic, since it was never uttered as we hear it by any human being. And, as it turns out, it was partially created in reaction to something that doesnt exist.
In his interview with the Los Angeles Times, Corbet said that he would never have done it any other way, recounting when he and his daughter were watching North by Northwest and theres a sequence at the U.N., and my daughter is half-Norwegian, and two characters are speaking to each other in [air quotes] Norwegian. My daughter said: ‘Theyre speaking gibberish.’ And I think thats how we used to paint people brown, right? And, I think that for me, thats a lot more offensive than using innovative technology and really brilliant engineers to help us make something perfect.
But there is no scene in Alfred Hitchcocks 1959 film North by Northwest set at the United Nations or anywhere else in which two characters speak fake Norwegian or any other faked language. Furthermore, when Corbet brings in the racist practice of brownface makeup that marred movies like 1961s West Side Story, he is doing a further disservice to Hitchcocks film. The U.N. scene in North by Northwest features Cary Grant speaking with a South Asian receptionist played by Doris Singh, not an Anglo in brownface.
Corbets use of AI, then, is based on something that AI itself is prone to, and criticized for: a hallucination in which previously stored data is incorrectly combined to fabricate details and generate false information that tends toward gibberish. While the beginning of Hitchcocks Torn Curtain (1966) is set on a ship in a Norwegian fjord and briefly shows two ships officers conversing in a faked, partial Norwegian, Corbets justification was based on a false memory. His argument against inauthenticity is inauthentic itself.
AI was used last year in other films besides The Brutalist. Respeecher also corrected the pitch of trans actress Karla Sofía Gascóns singing voice in Emilia Pérez. It was used for blue eye color in Dune: Part Two. It was used to blend the face of Anya Taylor-Joy with the actress playing a younger version of her, Alyla Browne, in Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. Robert Zemeckiss Here, with Tom Hanks and Robin Wright playing a married couple over a many-decade span, deployed a complicated youth mirror system that used AI in the extensive de-agings of the two stars. Alien: Romulus brought the late actor Ian Holm back to on-screen life, reviving him from the original 1979 Alien in a move derided not only as ethically dubious but, in its execution, cheesy and inadequate.
It is when AI is used in documentaries to re-create the speech of people who have died that is especially susceptible to accusations of both cheesiness and moral irresponsibility. The 2021 documentary Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain used an AI version of the late chef and authors voice for certain lines spoken in the film, which provoked a striking degree of anger and unease among Bourdains fans, according to The New Yorker. These fans called resurrecting Bourdain that way ghoulish and awful.
Dune: Part Two [Photo: Warner Bros. Pictures]
Audience reactions like these, though frequent, do little to dissuade filmmakers from using complicated AI technology where it isnt needed. In last years documentary Endurance, about explorer Ernest Shackletons ill-fated expedition to the South Pole from 1914 to 1916, filmmakers used Respeecher to exhume Shackleton from the only known recording of his voice, a noise-ridden four-minute Edison wax cylinder on which the explorer is yelling into a megaphone. Respeecher extracted from this something authentic which is said to have duplicated Shackletons voice for use in the documentary. This ghostly, not to say creepy, version of Shackleton became a selling point for the film, and answered the question, What might Ernest Shackleton have sounded like if he were not shouting into a cone and recorded on wax that has deteriorated over a period of 110 years? Surely an actor could have done as well as Respeecher with that question.
Similarly, a new three-part Netflix documentary series, American Murder: Gabby Petito, has elicited discomfort from viewers for using an AI-generated voice-over of Petito as its narration. The 22-year-old was murdered by her fiancé in 2021, and X users have called exploiting a homicide victim this way unsettling, deeply uncomfortable, and perhaps just as accurately, wholly unnecessary. The dead have no say in how their actual voices are used. It is hard to see resurrecting Petito that way as anything but a macabre selling pointcarnival exploitation for the streaming era.
Beside the reanimation of Petito and the creation of other spectral voices from beyond the grave, there is a core belief that the proponents of AI enact but never state, one particularly apropos in a boomer gerontocracy in which the aged refuse to relinquish power. That belief is that older is actually younger. When an actor has to be de-aged for a role, such as Harrison Ford in 2023s Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, AI is enlisted to scan all of Fords old films to make him young in the present, dialing back time to overwrite reality with an image of the past. Making a present-day version of someone young involves resuscitating a record of a younger version of them, like in The Substance but without a syringe filled with yellow serum.
When it comes to voices, therefore, it is not just the dead who need to be revived. Fords Star Wars compatriot Mark Hamill had a similar process done, but only to his voice. For an episode of The Mandalorian, Hamills voice had to be resynthesized by Respeecher to sound like it did in 1977. Respeecher did the same with British singer Robbie Williams for his recent biopic, Better Man, using versions of Williamss songs from his heyday and combining his voice with that of another singer to make him sound like he did in the 1990s.
Here [Photo: Sony Pictures]
While Zemeckis was shooting Here, the youth mirror system he and his AI team devised consisted of two monitors that showed scenes as they were shot, one the real footage of the actors un-aged, as they appear in real life, and the other using AI to show the actors to themselves at the age they were supposed to be playing. Zemeckis told The New York Times that this was crucial. Tom Hanks, the director explained, could see this and say to himself, Ive got to make sure Im moving like I was when I was 17 years old.
No one had to imagine it, Zemeckis said. They got the chance to see it in real time. No one had to imagine it is not a phrase heretofore associated with actors or the direction of actors.
Nicolas Cage is a good counter example to this kind of work, which as we see goes far beyond perfecting Hungarian accents. Throughout 2024, Cage spoke against AI every chance he got. At an acceptance speech at the recent Saturn Awards, he mentioned that he is a big believer in not letting robots dream for us. Robots cannot reflect the human condition for us. That is a dead end. If an actor lets one AI robot manipulate his or her performance even a little bit, an inch will eventually become a mile and all integrity, purity, and truth of art will be replaced by financial interests only.
In a speech to young actors last year, Cage said, The studios want this so that they can change your face after youve already shot it. They can change your face, they can change your voice, they can change your line deliveries, they can change your body language, they can change your performance. And he said in a New Yorker interview last year, speaking about the way the studios are using AI, What are you going to do with my body and my face when Im dead? I dont want you to do anything with it! All this from a man who swapped faces with John Travolta in 1997s Face/Off with no AI requiredand face replacement is now one of the main things AI is used for.
In an interview with Yahoo Entertainment, Cage shared an anecdote about his recent cameo appearance as a version of Superman in the much-reviled 2023 superhero movie The Flash. What I was supposed to do was literally just be standing in an alternate dimension, if you will, and witnessing the destruction of the universe. . . . And youcan imagine with that short amount of time that I had, what that would mean in terms of what I could conveyI had no dialoguewhat I could convey with my eyes, the emotion. . . . When I went to the picture, it was me fighting a giant spider. . . . They de-aged me and Im fighting a spider.
Now thats authenticity.
