 |
|
|
|||||
In utterly bleak news, AI Overviews are now more accurate about the lack of a relationship between autism and vaccines than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On Wednesday, November 19, the CDC published an updated web page that defies broad scientific consensus and even its own past statements. The page now alleges that vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism. It must be said as early and clearly as possible that there is no link between vaccines and autism, as overwhelming data has demonstrated. Despite that fact, the first paragraph of the CDCs guidance on vaccines and autism now reads, “Scientific studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines contribute to the development of autism.” The update exploits a loophole that allows for fearmongering to continue, experts say. The CDC can justify changing its stance despite overwhelming evidence by exploiting a quirk of logic: you cant prove something never happens, writes Dr. Jake Scott, a board-certified infectious diseases specialist and clinical associate professor at Stanford University School of Medicine. Scientists cant prove vaccines never cause autism because proving a universal negative is logically impossible.” He adds that “the public can trust the evidence because it has shown time and time again that there is no link between vaccines and autism.” Debra Houry, the CDCs former chief medical officer, told the Washington Post that the CDC’s updated language “misrepresents decades of research.” Newly updated page tops Google search results A Google search of vaccine autism brings an AI Overview stating that Scientific evidence from numerous large-scale studies has overwhelmingly demonstrated no causal link between vaccines and autism. The AI-generated result cites the CDC, World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. At the same time, the CDCs newly updated page is one of the first links shown on Google after years of building up search credibility. According to its priority statement, the CDC claims that it must lead with integrity and serves the American publicindividuals, families, and communitieswho rely on accurate data, health guidance, and preventive measures. Yet it has published a falsehood that appears to bend to the will of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who has peddled anti-vax conspiracies along with an unproven link between taking Tylenol while pregnant and babies developing autism. Kennedy was sworn in as U.S. health secretary in Februaryand his influence has been swift. The next month, news broke that the CDC planned to undertake a large study into the link between vaccines and autism just as declines in vaccinations fueled measles outbreaks in children. Twisting an old headline The newly updated CDC guidance is, even more confusingly, still titled, Vaccines do not cause autism.” It comes with an asterisk that the headline only remains because of an agreement with Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, to keep it on the CDC website. In February, Cassidy spoke in favor of Kennedy as U.S. health secretary, critically stating that the latter committed that he would work within the current vaccine approval and safety monitoring systems, and not establish parallel systems.” Cassidy continued: “CDC will not remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines do not cause autism. The Republican senator even emphasized earlier in his speech that the evidence shows that vaccines do not cause autism. Yet now the headline is followed with efforts to disprove the scientific evidence behind it. Fast Company has reached out to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Senator Cassidy for comment and will update this post if we hear back.
Category:
E-Commerce
Maybe your car broke down, your computer was stolen, or you had a surprise visit to urgent care. Emergencies are inevitable, but you can prepare to deal with them by building an emergency fund. There are so many things that happen in our lives that we dont expect and most of them require financial means to overcome, said Miklos Ringbauer, a certified public accountant. The industry standard is to save three to six months of expenses in an emergency fund. However, this can feel daunting if you live paycheck to paycheck or if you have debt. But if youre in either of these situations, its even more crucial to build a financial safety net that can help you in times of crisis. Emergency funds allow you to prevent further debt, said Jaime Eckels, certified financial planner and wealth management leader for Plante Moran Financial Advisors. Suppose youre paying multiple credit cards and other loans. In that case, Rachel Lawrence, head of advice and planning for Monarch Money, a financial planning and budgeting app, recommends that you make the minimum payments while you build your emergency fund. Once youve hit an amount that feels right for your lifestyle, you can go back and continue tackling your debt more aggressively. Whether you want to start an emergency fund or create better habits while you save, here are some expert recommendations: Start with small milestones The idea of saving for three to six months worth of expenses can be daunting, so its best to start with a smaller milestone. Lawrence recommends starting with a goal of saving $1,000, then moving on to save one, three, and six months of expenses. The way you approach this goal can vary depending on your income and your budget. But starting with small, attainable goals can help you build an emergency fund without feeling financially strained. Starting small is okay. Even if its $20 right out of your paycheck, those small things can add up, Eckels said. She recommends building your emergency fund in a separate account from your regular savings account, ideally a high-yield savings account, which offers a higher interest rate than a traditional savings account. Decide on the appropriate amount for your life Knowing how much to save for your emergency fund depends on your life situation. Lawrence suggests you gauge your own financial responsibilities to estimate how much your ideal emergency fund should be. For single professionals with no significant financial responsibilities, such as a mortgage or a car, the amount might be $2,000 to $3,000. At the same time, people with children and several pets might aim to save for six months expenses. There’s no one-shoe-fits-all solution. Everybody is different, especially if you have variable expenses on a monthly basis, Ringbauer said. Lawrence recommends that self-employed people maintain two emergency funds: one to buffer low-income months and another for true emergencies. To build your buffer account, Lawrence recommends setting aside some money during high-earning months. You set that amount aside in your buffer account until you have two or three months of the amount that you want, she said. Because that way any month where you have less money, you go pull from the buffer and its no big deal. Automate your savings Eckels recommends setting up automatic savings as a low-effort way to build your emergency fund. Scheduling your savings to be withdrawn from your bank account as soon as your paycheck arrives is an effective way to build a savings habit without having to transfer the money manually. I always tell people if it was never in your bank account, you never had it, right? Eckels added. She also recommends that her clients open a separate account, one that isnt at the same bank as their checking account, so they arent tempted to transfer the money in a non-emergency. Make it visual As youre making progress towards your emergency fund goal, making it visual can help you stay motivated, according to Lawrence. She recommends getting creative with how you track your progress, ideally with a method that brings you joy. You want your brain to get rewarded as often as possible when youre seeing a bunch of progress, she said. Some options to make your progress visual include drawing a thermometer-like tracker and keeping it updated as you advance toward your goal, documenting your progress on a habit-building tracker on your phone, or using a budgeting app with a tracking tool. Save windfalls If your budget is really tight and you dont have much wiggle room to set aside money for an emergency fund, Lawrence recommends saving windfalls. Unexpected chunks of money that maybe you werent expecting, like tax refunds or getting a third paycheck when you normally get paid twice a month, or a bonus, those are your best ways to make progress when youre tight otherwise, said Lawrence. In general, Lawrence recommends that people keep 10% of their windfall for themselves and the rest for their emergency fund. With that breakdown, you can both save and feel rewarded by the unexpected income. If you use it, don’t feel guilty Chances are that an emergency will happen, and when it does, you dont need to feel guilty for using your emergency fund, Lawrence said. Instead, its best to think about how youve achieved your goal of building a financial safety net for yourself. You wouldnt feel bad about using your down payment to buy a house, you wouldnt feel bad about saving for retirement, actually to retire, Lawrence said. The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism. Adriana Morga, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
For the 150th episode of my award-winning podcast series, FUTURE OF XYZ, I sat down with Nick Foster, former head of design at Google X and leading futures designer. We quickly found common ground in our strong belief that society doesnt think about the future in the right way. Too often, the future is reduced to flashy visions, both in media headlines and through messages from leading corporations. The future feels like a sci-fi movie that still seems far away. Nick and I both believe the future isnt some distant fantasy, but rather a tomorrow already unfolding before us. To prepare, we must pay closer attention to what we know now and how people are acting today. What drives Nick and his work isnt predictions or bets, but a deeper exploration of how we think about the future itself. That distinction resonated deeply with me. In my own workwhether the podcast, as a leader at iF Design, or in my consulting work, Ive argued that the future isnt something just out there to predict. Rather, the future is something we actively construct through our choices and the questions we dare to ask. IMAGINE THE FUTURE Nicks new book, Could Should Might Dont: How We Think About the Future, emerged from years of conversations inside Google X and beyond, where he noticed a surprising truth: Even among the worlds leading innovators, we often fail to approach the future with real rigor. We rely on hunches, dotted lines, and simplified stories. This lack of discipline not only weakens the conversation, but leaves us ill-equipped for whats actually to come. Rather than writing a manifesto or prescriptive framework, Nick created a taxonomya way to classify the different modes of imagining the future. By delving into how we think about the future, he hopes our collective conversations become more rounded, more actionable, and more honest about uncertainty. During our conversation, we touched on the future mundane, the idea that most lived experiences will be found not in extremes, but in the everyday middle of the bell curve. This lens particularly aligns with my own mission at iF Design. Design, after all, is the mediator between big ideas and daily life. From the products we use, to the systems that govern them, to the values they embed, design shapes how we experience change. My role at iF Design is precisely about interrogating this: How do we embed sustainability and impact into design decisions so that what feels ordinary tomorrow reflects responsibility and resilience, not just convenience or speed? Nick also reflects on a profound cultural shift we are experiencing. For the first time in modern history, entire generations are less confident about what the future will bring. Having pushed exponential economic growth to its limits, were beginning to wrestle with the well, and now what? question that undercuts strident narratives of progress. In my own conversations, Ive seen how this moment of reckoning demands we focus on intentionality, pivoting from chasing growth alone to cultivating resilience. WHATS NEXT In Nicks view, technology currently holds the wheel when it comes to shaping whats next. With that power comes responsibilitya responsibility corporations and societies alike have yet to fully embrace. I often remind audiences that while technology will remain a critical driver, its our values, our courage, and our willingness to collaborate that will ultimately determine the future(s) we design into being. And as Nick reminded me, in a time of unprecedented change, we must resist the urge to cling blindly to what we already believe. Instead, we need to ask deeper questions, demand more rigorous thinking, and recognize that imagining the future is not just for futurists. Its a collective skill we all must learnand practice together. Thats precisely why this conversation mattered to me. Every day I explore how leadership, design, and purpose intersect to shape a more human, more sustainable future. Nicks work underscores that same truth: The future isnt something happening to us. Its something we are all responsible for shaping. And that begins with how we choose to think, design, and act today. Lisa Gralnek is global head of sustainability and impact for iF Design, managing director of iF Design USA Inc., and creator/host of the podcast, FUTURE OF XYZ.
Category:
E-Commerce
Picture the scene. Youve advertised a job on LinkedIn and received applications from around Europe. The perfect candidate lives in one of the worlds top tech citiesParis, Berlin, or Amsterdam, for instance. Your company is based somewhere in Europe, so hiring them should be easy, right? Unfortunately, no. Despite their geographical proximity, countries in Europe still vary significantly in their hiring rules and regulations, making it hard to compliantly pay cross-border workers. Lets take a closer look at the problem. So close, yet so far Theres naturally a certain amount of friction in terms of labor law compatibility between European states inside and outside of the European Union (EU). But even within the umbrella of the EU, countries have their own labor, tax, and social security rules that can turn simple payroll procedures into a nightmare. Thats because EU labor law is issued via directives that allow member states discretion in how they implement rulings. For businesses, this makes an EU-wide hiring strategy impossible, instead requiring individual approaches to each and every country a company might want to hire inup to and including incorporation. This isnt something that can be done as an afterthought. Misclassifying a worker, for instance by employing someone as a contractor rather than an employee, may lead to penalties and legal trouble. The state of cross-border hiring in Europe Despite the difficulties, businesses continue to hire across borders for the simple reason that talent is getting harder to find locally. One report found that 54% of European employers expect labour shortages to worsen over the next five years. And a patchwork of talent availability means skills and the businesses that need them are rarely in the same placeforcing businesses to look elsewhere. But hiring across borders isnt getting easier. While the demand for specialized talent has increased by 112% over the last three years, the complexity of hiring talent has also increasedparticularly in the EU, with incoming requirements like the pay transparency directive. The movement of workers between countries is also a minefield. Under EU rules, employees can only be subject to one countrys social security requirements at a time (to avoid double contributions). Some countries have cross-border agreements but employee tax exposure can be hard to fully comprehend, even for the experts. Heres what that looks like in practice A London startup wants to hire its first engineer in Berlin. Expanding into a new European talent market means a costly and months-long process of establishing a business entityall to justify a headcount of one. How about a Dutch company trying to support an employee relocating to Spain? The employer wants to be supportive, but there are clear tax residency and other legal implications such as pay transparency that have to be explored. The difficulty of navigating these all-too-common issues is putting a roadblock on progress and forcing businesses to compromise on quality by hiring in their own backyards. The problem with payroll Despite most companies having employees in more than one country, the means of paying them continue to lag behind. Payroll (often the largest expense for a company at around 50-60% of spending) has historically been seen as a back-office burden. Payroll is an essential cost of business, but because of all the challenges weve discussed, its expensive, complex, and generally fails to add strategic value. When youre running payroll across borders, the complexity only goes up. Indeed, 85% of global executives say compliance requirements have become more complex in the last three years. In short, its all risk and no reward. The right software can help In response to the expanding global workforce, more workforce management companies are developing software designed to help companies hire and pay European workers without the burden of navigating complex administrative requirements. My company, Multiplier, offers one of these solutions. As a centralized platform for payroll operations, our payroll solution enables companies to pay employees in countries where they dont have a legal entity, fully compliant with local tax and social security rules. This would allow the London startup discussed earlier to hire its first engineer in Berlin without the delay and expense of incorporation in Germany. And if things dont work out, the startup wont have to go through the rigmarole of shutting down an entity in Berlin afterwards. Similarly, the Dutch company with a marketer who relocated to Spain doesnt have to worry about the tax residency implications and potential penalties. They can seamlessly support their employees without disrupting their existing payroll compliance efforts. Unlocking European talent Paying people across borders is a problem unlikely to be solved politically. In an increasingly multipoar world, theres little prospect of the increased regulatory alignment necessary to enable seamless international payments. In the meantime, payroll solutions will help remove the friction required to pay cross-border workers, helping companies to accelerate their growth and recruit the best European talentinstead of settling for the best available talent locally. Sagar Khatri is CEO and cofounder of Multiplier.
Category:
E-Commerce
Microsoft is the latest tech giant to announce its new return-to-work (RTO) mandate. The first phase of the mandate is set to start in February 2026, requiring Seattle-area employees living within a 50 miles radius of a Microsoft office will need to be in office at least three days a week. Over the next year, the company expects the same from the rest of its U.S. and international employees. Microsoft was one of the last big companies to offer their workforce flexibility. Competitors like Google, Meta, Amazon, Zoom, and AT&T have all announced their own unique policies requiring workers to be in the office. These are all innovative, technology-led companies. Yet their RTO mandates and hybrid work policies are all supremely outdated. Instead of honestly considering what the future of work means for employees and how it can benefit companies, many leaders are scared that if employees are allowed to work from anywhere, they will lose a bit of control over their workforce. Real leaders are embracing the future. At Gather, we recognize that flexibility is the key to accessing higher tier talent, bigger clients, and ultimately better business outcomes. Change of mindset Once upon a time, CEOs were huge fans of working from home. Many notable business leaders are on record stating the benefits of working from home from a business, personal, and even a societal level. Mark Zuckerberg famously said, I’ve found that working remotely has given me more space for long-term thinking and helped me spend more time with my family, which has made me happier and more productive at work. Why the sudden shift? These RTO mandates arent to build culture or increase productivity or any of the other canned responses. Instead, many companies are locked into long-term leases on office spaces in cities all across the country. For decades, a 10-year lease for office space was the norm for large corporations. It kept rent costs stable and allowed companies to set up roots in major hubs across the nation. When companies signed these leases, it was a smart move. Then came the pandemic. People were forced to work from home. Large office spaces werent just unnecessary; they became a hazard for employee safety. All work shifted to remote work, and the results spoke for themselves. A study from the U.S. Career Institute found that companies can save up to $10,600 per employee who works remotely and remote work can have a positive impact on an employees mental and physical health. Countering many productivity claims, the study also found that 79% of managers feel their team is more productive when working remotely. RTO does more harm than good Fast forward a few years post-pandemic, and these long-term leases still exist. Despite all the benefits seen from remote work, companies are desperate to justify their massive spends on office space. So, employees are coerced to get their butts back in seats with rigid mandates bolstered by claims of productivity. These mandates have already demonstrated a negative impact on employees and businesses alike. There is little evidence that RTO mandates improve a companys financial performance, according to an MIT Sloan Management Review article. RTO mandates disrupt employees established positive work routines, leading to higher attrition, especially among high-performing employees and those with caregiving responsibilitiesanother strike against corporate America and its record with women in the workforce. Whats more, RTO mandates often function as thinly veiled layoffs, further increasing attrition and the exodus of top talent while decreasing trust. A recent study from Workways found that 71% of HR leaders report eroded trust post-RTO announcements and 80% of companies lost talent because of the mandates. Even if returning to the office actually increased productivity, to make the terms of returning so inflexible disregards the way people work. Even when these mandates are classified as hybrid and only require a few days in the office, companies are missing the point. To be truly productive requires flexibility and agility. A new definition of hybrid In 2025, defining hybrid work must go well beyond the outdated discussion of where work is being done. Hybrid must be multifaceted. Companies need to approach hybrid work by considering which projects and teams come together for collaborative roles and which need the privacy and focus of working independentlyand recognizing that those parameters can change depending on project demands. It is a balance of people, places, tools, and culture. To be clear, Im not anti-office. There is a time and a place for bolstering corporate culture and collaboration. However, the decision should not be made by executives in an ivory tower but by team leaders based on the needs of their teams. RTO mandates will continue to make headlines for the rest of this year and any time a major company announces its new policy. But, as these long-term leases diminish, lets see how many mandates remain. The debate is not and has never been about the RTO mandates themselves. The real debate is on the future of work and what that looks and feels like for leaders. The pandemic made it clear: Companies are perfectly capable of adapting to the wants and needs of the workforce when forced to do so. The real future of work isnt about office space, water cooler talk, or butts in seats. It is rooted in trust, respect, and readiness to embrace change. The leaders that follow this path will set their companies up for success, winning the battle for talent and performance. Justin Tobin is founder and president of Gather.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] next »