 |
|
|
|||||
In late 2025, Interpol coordinated a global operation across 134 nations, seizing roughly 30,000 live animals, confiscating illegal plant and timber products, and identifying about 1,100 suspected wildlife traffickers for national police to investigate. Wildlife trafficking is one of the most lucrative illicit industries worldwide. It nets between US$7 billion and $23 billion per year, according to the Global Environment Facility, a group of nearly 200 nations as well as businesses and nonprofits that fund environmental improvement and protection projects. People buy and sell a wide range of items, including live animals, plant powders and oils, ivory carvings, and musical instruments. Historically, enforcement has been largely reactive. There is so much global trade that fewer than 1 in 10 international cargo shipments of any kind are physically inspected. Traffickers also avoid detection by using false or generic names instead of proper species identification, employing coded language in online listings, rerouting shipments, and shifting to different messaging platforms when enforcement pressure increases. Emerging digital tools are helping authorities link online monitoring, legal reference tools, and on-the-ground investigations. As a researcher at the University of Florida working at the intersection of conservation science and applied technology, I observed these advancements firsthand at an international meeting of governments and partner organizations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, often known by its acronym, CITES. This treatythe cornerstone for international regulation of trade in endangered plants and animalsis enforced by national customs and wildlife agencies. AI and digital tools for inspection A huge challenge for officials seeking to prevent wildlife trafficking is knowing where to lookand then figuring out what theyve found. Cargo screening: Advanced X-ray screeners, similar to those used in airport security but designed for cargo, are being paired with software that helps spot unusual shapes or materials inside packages. Trials conducted at major ports and mail processing centers in Australia have detected animals concealed in various kinds of shipments. The software does not identify species but highlights anomalies, helping inspectors decide which packages deserve closer inspection. Assisted identification: A software program supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences uses artificial intelligence to help identify the species of animals or animal parts found in shipments. Inspectors can use chatbot-style interfaces to describe what they have found to a system trained on technical documents with detailed descriptions of a wide range of species. This type of work can help inspectors tell the difference between closely related species whose legal protections differ. For example, trade of African grey parrots (Psittacus erithacus) is strictly regulated. There are different, often less stringent protections for similar-looking species, such as the Timneh parrot (Psittacus timneh) and the brown-necked parrot (Poicephalus fuscicollis). Portable DNA testing: Enforcement efforts dont always happen in offices and labs. One company aims to provide small, handheld kits that can detect up to five species in about 20 or 30 minutes without needing traditional lab equipment. The kits show their results on a simple strip that changes color when the DNA of a particular species appears in a sample. Conceptually, its similar to a pregnancy test, which changes color when a hormone is detected. Timber identification: Handheld scanners use software to quickly identify timber species by examining the internal cellular structure of the wood. This can help to distinguish protected hardwoods from legal alternatives in regions where illegal logging is widespread, such as South America, Southeast Asia and Africa. Background research and risk profiling Even before wildlife-related items appear at national borders, there can be signs of illegal trafficking that technology can help identify. Monitoring online trade: Large volumes of wildlife trafficking now occur through online transactions. To avoid detection, sellers often use vague descriptions or coded language, such as listings that omit species names entirely or use emojis instead of words. Others hide key details in images or brief text that say little about what is being sold, even just showing a photo with no description. Anti-trafficking organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund collaborate with tech companies to scan online listings using AI and content moderation tools. Between 2018 and 2023, the tech companies blocked or removed more than 23 million listings and accounts related to protected species, including live reptiles, birds, and primates, and elephant products. Early warnings from paperwork: Shipping documents often provide early warning signs of illegal trade. Wildlife enforcement officers, transport sector personnel, government tax officers, and others are using new software tools to analyze millions of manifests and permits, looking for species names that arent usually traded on particular routes; shipments that are unusually heavy or underpriced; and complex routing through multiple transit countries. Instead of inspecting shipments at random, these systems help enforcement agencies identify the consignments most likely to contain illegal materials. Navigating wildlife trade laws: Enforcement officers have to navigate vast legal complexity. New tools seek to compile laws from multiple countries, helping inspectors understand regulations across export, transit, and destination nations. Using trade data to identify other species to monitor: Researchers at the University of Oxford have developed a method that uses wildlife trade records to identify thousands of highly vulnerable endangered species that could benefit from stricter international trade protections and stronger law enforcement to limit exploitation. Taken together, these devices and systems extendbut do not replacehuman expertise. They help officers decide which shipments or sites to focus on, identify what they find, and share information internationally. No single technology will end wildlife trafficking, but these digital tools can enable a shift from reactive enforcement toward proactive, coordinated action, helping authorities keep pace with adaptive criminal networks. Eve Bohnett is an assistant research scholar at the Center for Landscape Conservation Planning at the University of Florida. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Estée Lauder has accused Walmart of selling counterfeit beauty goods on its website in a lawsuit filed in California federal court earlier this week that namechecks celebrities including Taylor Swift and Beyoncé. The New York-based beauty giant is taking the big-box retailer to court on grounds of trademark infringement after purchasing, inspecting, and testing products and determining they werent actually made by its eponymous brand, along with others that it owns: Le Labo, La Mer, Clinique, Aveda, and Tom Ford. The lawyers for Estée Lauder didnt hold back, either, shaming Walmart for its business practices. The conduct herein complained of was extreme, outrageous, fraudulent, and was inflicted on plaintiffs in reckless disregard of plaintiffs rights, the lawsuit reads, in part. Said conduct was despicable and harmful to plaintiffs and as such supports an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of defendants and to deter them from similar such conduct in the future. The lawsuit goes into detail about the specific products owned by brands under the Estée Lauder umbrella that it deemed counterfeit, including a fragrance from the Le Labo brand, La Mer moisturizer, Clinique eye cream, an Aveda hair brush, and several Tom Ford fragrances. Searches on Walmart.com still generate results for the products that the lawsuit claims are identical, substantially indistinguishable, or confusingly similar to the trademarks for the Estée Lauder-owned brands. A 1-ounce jar of Crme de la Mer moisturizer that retails on La Mers website for $200, for example, is still available for purchase on Walmarts website for as little as $146.35 though reviewers for similar products have raised the possibility that theyre counterfeits. ZERO TOLERANCE After the lawsuit dropped, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer initially issued a longer statement to some media outliers, including CNBC, that mentioned it doesnt tolerate bad actors on its platform. However, it later shortened the statement to the following, which it issued to Fast Company: “We are aware of the complaint and have zero tolerance for counterfeit products. We will respond appropriately with the court when we are served.” We are aware of the complaint and have zero tolerance for counterfeit products, the revised statement read. We will respond appropriately with the court when we are served. In September, CNBC published a lengthy investigation about how Walmarts embrace of third-party sellers on its online marketplace resulted in its seller and product vetting becoming more lax with time, resulting in products later confirmed to be counterfeit. ESTÉE LAUDER ALSO UNDER FIRE Estée Lauder hasnt exactly been immune to criticism lately. A grassroots effort emerged on social media last month urging people to boycott Estee Lauder products. That came after The Guardian reported in detail last month that President Donald Trump was keen for the U.S. to acquire Greenland on the urging of a longtime associate, Ronald Lauder, heir to the founder of the beauty brands namesake. One such post on the r/MakeupAddiction subreddit urging people to boycott the companys many brands has received 7,100 upvotes and more than 650 comments. Estée Lauder didnt immediately respond to a request from Fast Company for a comment regarding the lawsuit nor the calls for a boycott of its brands. ROSE PRICK VS PICKY ROSE In the case of the Tom Ford fragrances the lawsuit identified copycat versions of five, private blend products that it said are very likely to cause confusion for consumers given the similar-looking bottles and names to originals. Instead of Tom Fords Rose Prick fragrance, for example, shoppers on Walmart can snag a bottle of Picky Rose. Other fragrances cited include Intense Peach, whats alleged to be a knockoff of Tom Fords Bitter Peach fragrance. The knockoffs are still available for purchase on Walmarts websiteand for a fraction of the price. For example, Tom Ford sells a 50-millimeter bottle of its Rose Prick fragrance for $405. A larger, 80-milimeter bottle of Picky Rose is available on Walmart.com for $21.34. CELEBRITY FACTOR Blakely Law Group, which is representing Estée Lauder, specializes in intellectual property law and has previously represented a variety of plaintiffs, including Paris Hilton, who reached an undisclosed settlement with Hallmark in 2010 after the greeting card company used her thats hot catchphrase. In the lawsuit against Walmart, the lawyers mentioned the celebrity factor for only one of its brands. The lawsuit cites Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Joe Jonas, Sophie Turner, and Gracie Abrams as examples of a myriad of celebrities that wear La Labo fragrances, while noting that Beyoncé was shown burning two Le Labo candles in her 2016 visual album Lemonade. The lawsuit doesnt appear to be a factor for investors at this point. Shares of Walmart have risen more than 1% since last Fridays close as of mid-day Thursday, while shares of Estée Lauder have surged nearly 9% during that time.
Category:
E-Commerce
Stellantis, the maker of Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, issued a do not drive warning for certain late-model vehicles, telling drivers not to use their vehicles until defective air bags are replaced, according to a notice from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). This stop-drive directive was issued for 225,000 U.S. vehicles from 2003 to 2016 that contain the “defective, deadly” Takata airbag inflators, and is part of a larger, ongoing recall. More than 67 million Takata air bags have been recalled in tens of millions of vehicles across U.S. “Over time, the chemical propellant inside certain Takata inflators can degrade, particularly in hot and humid conditions, increasing the risk of rupture during airbag deployment and the potential for metal fragments to enter the vehicle cabin,” Frank Matyok, a spokesperson for Stellantis, tells Fast Company. Such explosions have caused injuries and death, according to the NHTSA which confirmed 28 people in the U.S. have died as a result of the defective airbag exploding; and injured at least another 400 people. Older vehicles pose a higher risk, as they are more likely to explode. Meanwhile, a separate group of defective Takata air bags were recalled in late 2019 which involve non-azide driver inflators. Which vehicles are being recalled? Stellantis tells Fast Company the affected vehicles are the following: 20032016 Dodge Ram pickup trucks and Dodge Sprinter vans 20042009 Dodge Durango SUVs 20052012 Dodge Dakota pickup trucks 20052008 Dodge Magnum station wagons 20062015 Dodge Charger sedans 20072009 Chrysler Aspen SUVs 20072008 Chrysler Crossfire coupes 20082014 Dodge Challenger coupes 20052015 Chrysler 300 sedans 20072016 Jeep Wrangler SUVs What should I do if I own one of the recalled vehicles? A spokesperson for Stellantis tells Fast Company it will fix the vehicles free of charge, and began notifying affected customers earlier this week on February 9. Drivers can also find out if their vehicles are affected by this recall by contacting Stellantis’ customer service hotline toll-free at 833-585-0144, or by entering their 17-digit vehicle identification number (VIN) at the NHTSA.gov website.
Category:
E-Commerce
For most of modern management history, wasting time has been treated as a vice. This sensibility can be traced back to Frederick Taylors doctrine of scientific management, which recast work as an engineering problem and workers as components in a machine to be optimized, standardized, and controlled. In reducing human effort to measurable outputs and time-motion efficiencies, Taylorism marked the beginning of the end for seeing people as thinking agents, turning them instead into productivity units not unlike laboratory rats, rewarded or punished according to how efficiently they ran the maze. Since then, we have come a long way. The post-war rise of the knowledge worker, and later the age of talent that took shape from the 1960s onwards, marked a decisive break with the logic of the factory floor. Work was no longer merely a job to be endured, but a career to be developed. Organizations began to concern themselves with engagement, motivation, wellbeing, and worklife balance, not out of benevolence alone but because value increasingly resided in peoples minds rather than their muscles. Human capital came to mean employability, shaped by intelligence, drive, expertise, and a new, if imperfect, meritocracy that coexisted with vocational careers. The growth of the creative class reinforced this shift: machines would handle the boring, repetitive tasks, freeing humans from the assembly line to think, design, and imagine. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} The latest iteration of this story is, of course, AI. What makes it different is not merely that it automates standardized and repetitive work, but that it increasingly encroaches on intellectual, creative, and cognitive tasks once thought to be distinctly human. Writing, analyzing, summarizing, designing, even ideating are now faster, cheaper, and more scalable when performed by machines. The irony is hard to miss. Just as work had evolved away from crude measures of output, we find ourselves drifting back towards a Taylorist logic, where value is once again assessed in terms of raw productivity: how much, how fast, how cheaply. Only this time, the benchmark is no longer the stopwatch but the algorithm. Worse still, the machines are not merely competing with us on these terms; they are learning from us how the work is done, refining it, and then doing it better. In the process, the very qualities that once distinguished human work risk being reduced to inputs in someone elses optimization function. This is widely framed as progress. It may turn out to be a costly misunderstanding. Engineering inefficiencies Deep thinking is inefficient by design. It is slow, cognitively demanding, and frequently unproductive in the short term. Experimentation is worse. Most experiments fail, and even the successful ones rarely succeed on schedule; plus if you know in advance whether an experiment will work, then its not truly an experiment. Intrinsic curiosity is even more unruly, leading people into intellectual detours with no obvious payoff. None of this lends itself to neat metrics or reassuring dashboards. From a narrow productivity perspective, it looks like waste. Those inefficiencies are not limited to how humans think. They also define how humans relate to one another at work. Acting human, and especially acting humane, is inefficient by design. Greeting your barista and asking how they are doing slows the line, even as the system is optimized to maximize how many lattes can be poured per hour and you are encouraged to streamline your order through an app. Asking colleagues how they are doing at the start of a meeting consumes time that could otherwise be spent racing through the agenda. Showing genuine interest in others, listening without an immediate instrumental purpose, or helping someone become better at their job often sits well outside your formal goals, your key performance indicators, or your objectives and key results. From a narrow productivity perspective, this too looks like waste. Friction in the system Efficiency, however, is indifferent to relationships. It privileges throughput over connection, output over meaning, and speed over understanding. Optimized systems have little tolerance for small talk, empathy, or curiosity because these behaviors resist standardization and cannot be cleanly measured or scaled. In a perfectly efficient organization, no one asks how anyone else is doing unless the answer can be converted into performance. Help is offered only when it aligns with incentives. Time spent listening, reflecting, or caring is treated as friction in the system. The problem is surprisingly common, namely that when organizations optimize for the system, they often end up sub-optimizing the subsystems within it. This is a familiar lesson from systems theory, but one that is easily forgotten. In the age of AI, the system increasingly appears to be designed around what machines do best, while humans are quietly downgraded to a supporting subsystem expected to adapt accordingly. We hear a great deal about augmentation, but in practice augmentation often means asking people to work in ways that better suit the technology rather than elevating the human contribution. Talent, however, will not be elevated if human output continues to be judged by the same raw, quantitative metrics that define machine performance: speed, repetition, and operational efficiency. If you are simply running faster in the same direction, you will only get lost quicker (and maybe even lose the capacity to realize that you are lost). These apparent efficiency measures reward behavior that machines naturally excel at and penalize the very qualities that distinguish human work. They focus obsessively on outut while ignoring input: the role of joy, curiosity, learning, skill development, and thoughtful deployment of expertise. In doing so, organizations risk building systems that are optimized for AI, but progressively impoverished of the human capabilities they claim to value most. Inefficiency and new value This is why efficiency so often feels dehumanizing. It removes the informal, relational, and moral dimensions of work that make organizations more than collections of tasks. Humans do not learn, trust, or collaborate best when they behave like streamlined processes. We improve through interactions that appear inefficient on paper but are foundational in practice. In this sense, the inefficiencies of acting human are not a failure of management but a feature of humanity. They are the social and psychological infrastructure that allows thinking, learning, and cooperation to occur at all, and the necessary counterweight to systems designed to optimize everything except what makes work worth doing. Incidentally, inefficiency also plays a central role in the creation of new value, both in discovering better ways of doing existing things and in discovering entirely new things to do. Many important advances in science and business did not arise from tighter optimization or marginal efficiency gains, but from allowing room for exploration, deviation from plan, and attention to unexpected outcomes. In science, this is often the product of curiosity-driven research rather than narrowly goal-directed problem solving. Alexander Flemings observation in 1928 that a mold contaminant inhibited bacterial growth on a culture plate did not, by itself, produce a usable antibiotic, but it did reveal a phenomenon that later became penicillin once developed by others. Similarly, early work that eventually led to technologies such as CRISPR gene editing emerged from basic research into bacterial immune systems, conducted without any immediate application in mind. These discoveries were not accidents in the casual sense, but they did depend on researchers having the freedom and attentiveness to notice anomalies rather than discard them as inefficiencies. The role of anomalies Business innovation shows a comparable pattern. The adhesive behind Post-it Notes was not the outcome 3M originally sought, but its unusual properties were documented rather than rejected, and only later matched to a practical use. This kind of outcome depends less on speed or optimization than on organizational tolerance for ideas that lack an immediate commercial rationale. Systems optimized exclusively for efficiency tend to filter such anomalies out before their value becomes apparent. Even in exploration and trade, progress has often followed from imperfect information and miscalculation rather than from optimal planning. European expansion into the Americas, for example, was driven in part by navigational errors and incorrect assumptions about geography. While hardly an argument in favor of error, it is a reminder that historical change frequently arises from deviations rather than from flawlessly executed plans. The broader point is not that inefficiency guarantees innovation, but that innovation is unlikely without it. Systems designed to maximize efficiency excel at refining what is already known. They are far less effective at generating what is new. Allowing space for uncertainty, exploration, and apparent waste is not an indulgence, but a necessary condition for discovering value that cannot be specified in advance. This distinction is captured neatly in the work of Dean Keith Simonton, who has argued that innovation follows a two-step process: random variation followed by rational selection. New ideas arise from error, experimentation, and departures from established rules, and only later are refined and selected for value. AI is exceptionally strong at the second step. It can evaluate options, optimize choices, and select efficiently among existing alternatives. What it cannot meaningfully do is generate the kind of genuine variation and rule breaking from which truly novel ideas emerge. That responsibility remains human. The risk in an AI-saturated environment is that organizations double down on selection while starving variation, becoming ever more efficient at refining yesterdays ideas. Reheating ideas If, in the name of efficiency, creativity itself is outsourced to AI, the result is not randomness but prefabrication: synthetic re-combinations of existing ideas, smoothed and averaged across prior human output. This often resembles creativity without delivering it, more akin to reheating ideas than inventing new ones. The food analogy is instructive. Cooking a proper meal is inefficient and time-consuming, while a frozen meal is faster and perfectly adequate. But no one serves a microwaved lasagna to an important guest and mistakes it for craft. The extra effort is the point. The same logic applies to thinking and work. Deep thinking is inefficient, but it converts familiarity into understanding. Stepping outside established processes may slow things down, but it is often how better methods are discovered. Time spent feeding curiosity rarely pays off immediately, but it expands skills, connections, and optionality. Even social inefficiencies, such as investing time in relationships that do not yield immediate returns, build trust and create opportunities that efficiency metrics fail to capture. In this sense, inefficiency is not the opposite of effectiveness but a different path to it. Systems optimized solely for speed and output may function smoothly in the short term, but they do so by eroding the very conditions that allow learning, adaptation, and originality to emerge. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-16X9.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/tcp-photo-syndey-1x1-2.jpg","eyebrow":"","headline":"Get more insights from Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic","dek":"Dr. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic is a professor of organizational psychology at UCL and Columbia University, and the co-founder of DeeperSignals. He has authored 15 books and over 250 scientific articles on the psychology of talent, leadership, AI, and entrepreneurship. ","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/drtomas.com\/intro\/","theme":{"bg":"#2b2d30","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#3b3f46","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91424798,"imageMobileId":91424800,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
Think about how many emails you receive each day. Then how many of those include the phrase please find attached in the body. One X user has made a plea to retire the phrase, a relic leftover from a time when business communication relied on typewritten letters posted in envelopes, which actually included attached documents to be found. The post quickly went viral, gaining nearly 15 million views since it was posted earlier this week. While the user doesnt elaborate why exactly they personally take issue with the phrase, or what to say instead, the post had the desired effect, with many weighing in with their own takes on modern email etiquette. Some agreed that the phrase is stuffy and outdated. Please find attached adds zero information, sounds robotic, and does not respect the reader’s time, one wrote. Here’s the file does the job better than a sentence that adds zero information, another added. Its true, these days email attachments are instantly accessible, clearly marked, and dont require a physical search. While young workers have no qualms including memes, emojis, slang, and abbreviations in their emails, and despite nearly one in four employees now using AI to help write emails, please find attached has somehow slipped through the net. Others staunchly defended the use of the tried-and-tested phrase. But if I don’t type those magic words, how will Outlook know to warn me when I inevitably forget to actually attach the file? one wrote. Baby, no, another added. The people are stupid. Many of us are trapped in a terminal cycle of reaching out and circling back, with dozens of corporate buzzwords and phrases that some argue make smart people sound less intelligent. But if youre in the market for some more creative ways to signal theres a PDF attached that needs attention, the replies to the X post is a goldmine. Behold, the attachment, one X user suggested as an alternative. For a sinister edge, There are attachments in this email with us right now, another put forth, or Watch out for the attachment below. Feeling pumped about the PDF attached? Get a load of this MF attachment, is another option. Or alternatively, feeling deflated? Find attached, if you even care works here. And if youd rather the receiver doesnt open the attachment, you could simply put: Please don’t find attached, one wrote. It’ll only be more work for us both.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] next »