 |
|
|
|||||
It’s Q1 2026. Your chief financial officer is cutting innovation budgets by 20%. Your AI pilot showed 94% accuracy improvements. The LLM is yielding solid results. You’re getting defunded anyway. The reason? You solved a problem AI can solve. Your budget-holder needed you to solve theirs. Companies launch AI pilots that produce results, then stall at scale. The team’s diagnosis: “They don’t get it.” What’s really going on: These projects never earned budget-holder buy-in. Passing the budget-holder test requires three things pilot teams fall short on: analytic proof that you move their needles, execution confidence that scale is achievable, and relational trust that you have their back. As economic headwinds hit 2026, here’s how to know if your project will surviveand what to do about it now. Analytic ProofDo You Move Their Needles? Budget-holders don’t fund impressive technology. They fund solutions that move metrics they get credit for at bonus time. Your pilot team celebrates: “Our AI improves processing accuracy by 40%!” Your budget-holder asks: “Does that improve my customer retention rate? Lower my cost per acquisition? Move my net promoter score? Show me the math and where this shows up in monthly financial reports.” Most teams can’t answer. They proved the technology works. They got great feedback from customers. They didn’t prove it moves the drivers of financial outcomes that matter to the person holding the purse strings. One of the most challenging barriers I encountered in banking: We proved migrating customers to digital self-service generated huge impacts on customer segments aligned to product P&Ls. But accounting systems didn’t attribute these improvements to each P&L owner. They couldn’t “get the credit” in performance reviews. Without attribution in the system of record, results almost didn’t exist. P&L owners had no incentive to shift resources from familiar approaches to digital initiatives they wouldn’t get recognized for. You may prove improvements in metrics everyone claims to supportcustomer experience, innovation, digital transformation. But if those improvements aren’t attributable to line items on their scorecard, they won’t survive prioritization discussions. This requires analytic work most pilots skip: understanding what drives the budget-holder’s financial metrics, connecting AI outputs to those drivers with causation and magnitude, and confirming results will manifest in financial reporting. When the CFO asks “prove ROI,” showing AI accuracy improvements isn’t an answer. Showing how accuracy translates to their measured outcomes is. Execution ConfidenceCan You Actually Scale This? Your pilot worked in controlled conditions with a small team, friendly users, and tolerance for iteration. Your budget-holder knows what you might not: What you needed to test is totally different than what you need to scale. They’re assessing execution risk. Can you articulate what’s different about scaling? Have you anticipated the capabilities to address those differences? Four capability gaps erode budget-holder confidence. Strategic optionality: AI evolves faster than traditional planning cycles. If your road map locks the organization into today’s context, you’re creating risk. Human judgment integration: Edge cases that were 2% of your pilot become thousands of customer impacts at scale. Do you know where human judgment is essential, or will you create operational chaos? Quantitative versus qualitative reality: Your dashboard shows 85% adoption. But are users completing tasks because the experience works, or because they have no alternative? Sustaining motivation: Organizational anxiety about AI is realpeople fear being replaced. What’s your impact on the budget-holder’s team motivation to achieve 2026 targets? Budget-holders who’ve seen technology work in pilots but fail at scale won’t fund projects where execution risks aren’t anticipated and addressed. Relational TrustDo You Have Their Back? This is the most critical dimension. Your budget-holder is assessing: Do you understand my pain? Are you here to make me successful, or to pursue the latest “shiny object”? The gap shows up in how teams frame problems. “We can use AI to automate customer service” starts with what AI can do. “Your call center costs are 15% above target and customer satisfaction is droppinghere’s how we address both” starts with their problem. It shows up in how you treat pushback. If the budget-holder or their team are “obstacles” to what you believe should happen, you’ve already failed. Their messages are loaded with intelligence about what they need before they’ll get on board. A team I worked with spent two years trying to get a test file of customer names from an operations team to validate a hypothesis. They kept asking without diagnosing the real issue: colleague fear of a new approach that seemed implausible and raised risks to predictable results. It could be overcome only through trust-building and patience. Given anxiety about AI replacing jobs, are you building confidence or eroding motivation among the people who need to execute? Budget-holders fund teams they trust understand their reality. Active champions invest in your success. Passive tolerance means you’re first on the cut list. The MetroCard Lesson In 2006, my team at Citi partnered with Mastercard and the Metropolitan Transit Authority to prove contactless payments worked in subway turnstiles. The technology performed. User feedback was strong. But scaling required three complex organizations to align business models, priorities, cultures, and decision-making. The execution capability took two decades to build. Today’s AI leaders don’t have 20 years. You have until Q1 budget reviews. What to Do This Week Assess where you stand on all three dimensions: 1. Analytic ProofCan you draw a direct line from AI outputs to your budget-holder’s measured outcomes? Not “Our accuracy improved, but “Here’s how accuracy translates to the retention rate you’re accountable for and will show up in your results”? If you can’t make that connection, do that analysis before asking for scale funding. 2. Execution ConfidenceCan you articulate what’s different about scaling versus piloting? Have you identified execution risksstrategic optionality, human judgment integration, what dashboards miss, organizational anxietyand built capability to address them? If you think scale is just “bigger pilot,” you haven’t earned their confidence. 3. Relational TrustHonest assessment: Are you focused on making your budget-holder successfu, or on building impressive technology? Are you treating their concerns as intelligence or obstacles? What’s your impact on their team’s motivation? If they’re not actively championing your project, you’re at risk. The AI projects that survive 2026 won’t necessarily be the most technologically impressive. They’ll be the ones where teams built all three dimensions of budget-holder confidence. Economic pressure doesn’t care about your pilot. It cares whether you solve their problem or yours.
Category:
E-Commerce
Laying people off takes its toll. Going back 25 years plus ago, I can still remember every situation that I had to do it in, says Robert Kovach, a work psychologist and former corporate executive. The experience sticks with you, he says. Because its not just about operational stress: Have I filled out the forms? Made the calls? Its also filled with moral stress, he adds. Even when the decision is necessary, it can feel like a violation of your own personal values. People laying off their coworkers often feel a clash between their responsibility to their company and their responsibility to be a good person to the people theyre laying offparticularly because layoffs are about a company needing to downsize, not always about the individual employees poor performance. These feelings have been coming up a lot lately, with layoffs reaching a high in 2025, and 2026 already being off to a layoffs-filled start, with Amazon, Pinterest, UPS, Home Depot, Dow, and others announcing cuts so far. While getting laid off can of course be devastating, theres a big emotional challenge for the people who must do the laying off, as well. How do you [show] respect [for] someone when you know you’re about to mess up their life? Kovach asks. Though you may get feedback from higher-ups that you shouldnt feel bad for letting someone go because its just business, you know deep down, that its not. Its all very personal, Kovach says. Fast Company spoke with several mental health experts about the psychological underpinnings of having to lay someone off at work: the anxiety leading up to the event, the language to use during the moment of truth, and the guilt-provoking aftermath. Maintaining composure throughout is keybut how do you? Like Kovach says: Youre about to mess up someones life. Prepare Being the person who has to deliver the news can be deeply distressing, says clinical psychologist Melanie McNally. Psychologically, many people experience anxiety, guilt, and even a sense of grief. Approach a layoff meeting with a clear idea of how you want to handle it, says Victor Lipman, a Psychology Today contributor who provides coaching on mindful management at work. This doesnt necessarily mean having a script ready, as that can come off robotic or impersonal, but lay out some key talking points you need to hit during the conversation. These might stem from organizational obligations. Consult with the appropriate powers that be, says Lipman, whether thats human resources or the companys legal department. You may be obligated to make certain statements about severance or explain the reason for layoffs in a certain way. Its worth making sure those points are covered not just to fulfill the duties to your organization, but also to add some predictability to an otherwise unpredictable situation. You may also want to turn to colleagues for moral support. Preparing emotionally might involve talking with a trusted colleague or supervisor, says McNally. HR and mental health providers might also be available at your company to help with layoff prep. Ultimately, to go into a layoff meeting prepared, its important to acknowledge and validate your own feelings first, says McNally. One way to do that, says Kovach, is to name that this is going to be tough. Dont pretend that youre a robotaccept the emotional component and choose to lean into the empathy that comes with it. Be direct Everyone knows that there is a wrong way to lay someone off. When former Google employee Vivek Gulati prepared for a meeting one morning in January 2023, he checked his email to find an announcement that the company would conduct 12,000 layoffs. (At least this email was sent on purposejust last month, Amazon accidentally sent employees an email announcing a round of global layoffs, which they later confirmed would indeed take place.) The next email in Gulatis inbox contained his personal layoff notice. In a story he wrote about this experience for Harvard Business Review, Gulati also shares how his manager learned about his layoff. He had tried to enter an office building, and his badge didnt work, Gulati writes. It was a rough way to find out. This is why mental health experts recommend conducting layoffs in person. Employees deserve personal communication, says Lipman. Laying someone off face-to-face exhibits emotional maturity in a companys leadership. For the person conducting the layoff, however, the temptation to do so at a distance is understandable. By using text or email, you wont have to see the person break down; you wont be faced with trying to comfort them in a situation where you cant provide much assurance. Kovach compares these at-a-distance layoffs to the studies from the 1960s where participants were told they were tasked with administering electric shocks to people they couldnt see in another room. It was much easier to knowingly cause someone harm when the administrator didnt witness it. While you should be physically present to lay someone off, its best if no one else is. Ideally, layoffs should be conducted in a private, neutral space, like your office or a quiet meeting room, says McNally. Be clear and direct. McNally suggests avoiding euphemisms, which might confuse or minimize the situation. For instance, you might feel compelled to cushion the blow with something like, Were going through a rough time financially now at the company, but if things turn around, Id love for you to get your job back. That likely doesnt represent a promise you can keep. You want it to be an efficient meeting, Lipman says, one that doesnt heighten existing emotional distress or provide false hope. Zoom can constitute such a private, neutral space if its facilitating a one-on-one meeting. This work for layoffs when thats the usual way you communicate with an employee, but if youre both working at a physical office, its best to eschew video calls in this tense moment. (And of course, mass firings over Zoom never go well, yet continue to be part of many big firms MO for laying people off.) Also: dont bash the company. Youre still management, Lipman says, and need to act professionally. Lipman suggests saying something like, I’m sorry to see you go. I’ve enjoyed working with you, but this is just something that has to be done. While Kovach acknowledges certain enterprises might offer scripts to ensure everyone losing their jobs get treated the same (for legal and/or policy reasons), its okay to massage that script into your own words for a personal touch. At the organizational level, companies should give transparency about why the layoffs are taking place: was a particular department underperforming? Did a new product fail to meet revenue goals? Companies can also offer mental health resources for employees conducting layoff, whether that’s in-house or via referrals. Also, the timing of layoffs should be well thought out and diligently coordinatedno one should find out theyre jobless because their key card suddenly doesnt work. Ready for reactions Calmness can be contagious, as can agitation, Lipman says. Bad reactions to getting laid off run the gamut, says Kovach. From tears to physical outbursts to even suicidal ideation, responses reflect the fact that losing a job is a massive, detrimental shakeup to someones life and well-being. It can fuel what somebody already believes about themselves, so they can slip into a narrative of I just wasn’t worth keeping, says social worker Yvonne Castaeda. This is why an explanation of its not you; its the company can be so important. When encountering emotions from employees like shock, anger, sadness, anxiety, or even relief, McNally suggests, the best practice is to allow space for these emotions and dont try to fix them right away. Thats because you wont be able to. Instead, take the time to listen to the employee, and validate their feelings in that moment. Provide support resources where you can, either from within your company or an outside trusted job placement organization, and give concrete details about severance packages. You can also encourage those whove been laid off to reach out to family, friends, or mental health professionals, McNally says. Not everyone handles these emotions calmly, even if you exude calm while conducting the layoff. People are very capable of making a scene in a layoff situation, says Lipman. You want to be sure you have some backup in case anything goes wrongsecurity, if it comes to that. Then theres dealing with your own guilt for having to lay off a coworker. Maybe this persons also a friendsomeone with whom youve shared successes and failures at work, and whose families youve maybe barbecued with on Sunday afternoons. Its normal to feel guilt, sadness, or even anger after laying someone off, McNally says. Reflecting on what took place, either alone, with friends, or with a mental health professional, can help process these emotions, as can generally practicing self-care, like getting enough sleep and exercise. At the end of your day, reassure yourself that this was something you had to do in the management role that you were in, Lipman says. If you offered empathy and clarity during a layoffthen its better you conducted it, than someone who considered it just business.
Category:
E-Commerce
An Olympic torch is a small, flaming time capsule. Since the start of the modern Games in 1936, the torch has been passed by thousands of runners in a relay that goes from Olympia, Greece to the host city’s stadium. It’s a feat of engineering, since it needs to be durable enough to resist wind and rain, while keeping the Olympic flame arrive. But torch designers also imbue them with symbolic meaning. 1936 Berlin [Photo: IOC] The Berlin 1936 torch was engraved with the Nazi iconography of an eagle. The Sapporo 1972 torch was a thin, cylindrical combustion tube that was a marvel of Japanese engineering. The Rio 2016 torch featured rippling blue waves celebrating the country’s natural beauty. 1972 Sapporo [Photo: IOC] What kind of torch represents the world we now live in? Carlo Ratti, the Italian architect and designer tasked with creating the torch for the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, pondered this question for a long time. Ratti’s work largely explores the future of cities, particularly as global warming looms. For him, the biggest issues of our time are climate change and political polarization. Three years ago, he began the process of making a torch that captured these big ideas. 2026 Milan Cortina [Photo: IOC] His torch is perhaps the most sustainable one we’ve seen. It is made of recycled materials and it is designed to be refilled, so it can be used up to 10 times. It is minimalist to a fault, meant to fade into the background so that the world focuses on the flame within it. The flame, he says, is a powerful symbol of our joint humanity. At this time of deep polarization and divisions, he says, we tried to strip down most of the things from the torch and really let the fire speak. Fire, after all, predates every nation that now passes it along. Its one of the first technologies of mankind, Ratti notessomething ancient, sacred, and shared long before borders existed.” A Lineage of Torch Makers Before sketching a single form, Ratti traveled to Lausanne, Switzerland, where every Olympic torch is preserved at the Olympic Museum. Seeing them in person, rather than online, made the pattern unmistakable. Everybody somehow tried to capture the moment of their time, Ratti says. Each torch, he observed, follows the same basic logic: a burner at the core, wrapped in a designed shell meant to convey meaning. Like car design, he explains, the engine is hidden beneath an eye-catching exterior. And then the second thing is capturing the momentconnecting with local motifs. 1992 Albertville [Photo: IOC] Early torches, beginning with the relay introduced at the Berlin 1936 Summer Olympics, leaned heavily on classical references. The London 1948 torch resembled a chalice, while the Rome 1960 torch was designed to look like a column. 1994 Lillehammer [Photo: IOC] Toward the end of the 20th century designs were more sculptural and declarative, often mirroring national ambition. The 1992 Albertville torch, designed by Philippe Starck, was in the shape of an elegant curve and was meant to reflect French modernism. The 1994 Lillehammer torch had a distinct Viking aesthetic. 2000 Sydney [Photo: IOC] In the 21st century, the emphasis shifted again to focus on technological innovation. The torch for Sydney 2000 famously combined fire and water. Beijing 2008 engineered its torch to survive the winds of Mount Everest. 2008 Beijing [Photo: IOC] A Radical Shift Against that backdrop, Rattis instinct was to do something quietly radical: design the flame, not the torch. That idea led to an inversion of the usual process. Rather than starting with an expressive exterior, Ratti and his team began with the burner itself, shaping only the minimum structure needed to hold and protect it. The result is the lightest Olympic torch ever producedsmall, slender, and almost an afterthought in the runners hand. We just start from the inside, Ratti says, and we do the minimal shape around the burner. [Photo: IOC] The effect is intentional disappearance. In photographs, the torch nearly dissolves into its surroundings, reflecting sky, snow, or cityscape depending on where its carried. The runner and the flame take precedence; the object recedes. Ratti describes the earliest sketch as a runner with a flame in her or his hand instead of the torch itself. 1964 Tokyo [Photo: IOC] There are a few earlier torch designers who had similar instincts. Ratti points to the torches designed by Japanese industrial designer Sori Yanagi for Tokyo 1964 Summer Olympics and Sapporo 1972 Winter Olympics as key inspirationsboth exercises in restraint. What has changed, he argues, is technology. Today, advances in aerodynamics, materials science, and fuel systems make it possible to minimize the object without compromising the flame. That same logic extends to sustainability. Milano Cortinas torch is not only smaller but engineered to be refilled and made largely from recycled aluminum. For Ratti, this approach is part of his broader philosophy. He argues that any designer working today must consider the environmental impact of their work. This applies to his work as an architect, creating a floating plaza in the Amazon River where people can experience the impact of climate change to turning a former railyard in Italy into a logistics hub featuring a renewable energy plant. The first step in order to adapt is to use less, to use less stuff, he says. [Photo: Andrea Amato/NurPhoto/Getty Images] Looking back at Olympic history is bittersweet. Earlier generations didn’t have to focus as much on sustainability because the climate hadn’t yet been so damaged. But today, it is impossible to design a torch without thinking of its environmental impact. For Ratti, it was important to imbue the torch with a clear message because the passing of the torch is seen by millionspossibly billionsof viewers around the world. By designing a torch that fades into the background, Ratti is making the case that we should pull back on overconsumption and excess, and focus our energies instead how we can work together to keep thriving as a species. Maybe humanity will lose interest in oversized ballrooms and gilded pastiche, he says.
Category:
E-Commerce
Its easy to be charmed by the first delivery robot you see. I was driving with my kids in our Chicago neighborhood when I spotted one out the window last year. It was a cheerful pink color, with an orange flag fluttering at about eye level and four black-and-white wheels. It looked almost like an overgrown toy. When I told the kids that it was labeled Coco, they started waving and giggling as it crossed the street. Over the months that followed, spotting Cocos rolling down the sidewalk became one of our favorite games. Then, last fall, another type of delivery robot appeared. This one was green and white, with hardier all-terrain wheels and slow-blinking LED eyes. My kids and I tried to read the name printed on its side as it idled across the street: Peggy? Polly? I later learned that the green newcomer was a Coco competitor made by a company called Serve Robotics. Every Serve robot is christened with its own individual moniker. At first, my interactions with the robots were mostly polite. One slowed to a stop while my dog cocked his head and sniffed curiously. Another waited patiently while we crossed Lincoln Avenue on our daily walk home from school, giving my stroller right of way on the ramp at the curb. In principle, they seemed like an improvement over double-parked delivery drivers and careening e-bikes. But some of my neighbors were having more negative experiences. Josh Robertson, who lives around the corner from me with his wife and two young children, was unnerved enough by a standoff with a robot that he decided to start a petition: No Sidewalk Bots. Thus far, more than 3,300 people have signed, with nearly one-third of those submitting an incident report. Through the incident field, Robertson has heard about feet being run overa Serve robot weighs 220 pounds and can carry 15 gallonsnear-collisions, unwelcome noise, blocked entryways, and more. In one case, a man required stitches around his eye after stumbling into a robots visibility flag. Sidewalks are for people, Robertson says. Vehicles, in general, should be in the streets. Robertsons petition, the first so far in the cities where Coco and Serve operate, has revealed a groundswell of frustration over the strategically cute autonomous vehicles. In conversations with the CEOs of Coco and Serve, I got a close-up look at the arguments in favor of delivery robots, which the companies say are better suited to short-distance deliveries than 2-ton cars. If they have their way, whats happening where I live will soon be playing out across dozens of cities as these well-capitalized startups seek to deploy thousands of their sidewalk bots. But in a matter of months, my neighborhoods robots have arguably gone from novelty to nuisance. Silicon Valley startups are good at launching bright ideas, but bad at estimating their collateral damage. Are our sidewalks destined to be their next victim? From cute to concern In early December, around the same time the petition started to get local media coverage and gain momentum, I found myself sympathizing for the first time with the petitioners point of view. I was running an errand on a sidewalk that was crusted on one side with a thick layer of dirty snow when I noticed a Serve robot named Shima inching forward in my direction. It stopped as I approached, per Serves protocols. But in order to pass it by without stepping onto the snow, I had to navigate an inches-wide lane of space. If I had been pushing a wagon or a stroller, I wouldnt have fit. The tree-lined sidewalks in my neighborhood are among the reasons I love living here. Outside my front door, near DePaul University, there is a constant stream of activity: bedraggled undergrads, eager dogs, bundled babies, dedicated runners. Within a 10-minute walking radius, I can find coffee, ice cream, playgrounds, vintage shopping, two Michelin-starred restaurants, my doctor, and my dentist. I began to worry that delivery robots would change Lincoln Parks sidewalks for the worse. Why delivery robots are suddenly everywhere In the U.S., startups have been experimenting with delivery robots for close to a decade. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of the first were deployed in San Francisco. By 2017, the Bay Area city had become a hotbed for robot innovationand residents frustration. In December of that year, city lawmakers passed an unusually restrictive policy limiting companies to deploying just three robots and requiring that a human chaperone accompany them. But the idea of sidewalk-based robots remained attractive to both entrepreneurs and delivery companies. Zach Rash and Brad Squicciarini founded Coco in 2020; as UCLA undergrads, they had built research robots to assess transportation and accessibility issues on campus. The following year, Uber spun Serve Robotics out of Postmates (which it had acquired for $2.65 billion to bolster its Uber Eats business), installing Ali Kashani, who had led Postmates X, as CEO. The delivery economy is booming, with three in four restaurant orders now eaten outside of the restaurant itself. For eateries and the platforms that enable their deliveries, robots offer a way around the labor costs and unpredictability associated with drivers. In an investor presentation from last year, Serve projected that its cost of delivery, with increased scale and autonomy, could be just $1 per trip. Mass adoption of delivery robots is now possible because of recent technology advancements, says Rash, Cocos CEO, as he ticks off the list. We have Nvidia compute on the vehicles thats designed for robotics. Battery capacity has gotten a lot better, so you can drive multiple days without needing to recharge. Then, we have really robust supply chains around wheels, motors, motor controllersa lot of the basic stuff you need to drive these things. Put it all together, and Coco aims to operate a global fleet of 10,000-plus vehicles in select U.S. cities and overseas locations like Helsinki. Were delivering hot food, so [the robot] has to be able to get from point A to point B incredibly reliably every single time while maintaining a really low cost, Rash says. Though Coco, like Serve, is only as wide as the shoulder width of an average adult, it can tote four grocery bags or even eight large pizzas. It can fit all the types of things people need delivered, says Rash, but its incredibly compact, its safe, its energy efficient, and I think its the best way to shuttle stuff around our cities. For now, that stuff consists almost entirely of restaurant deliveries. Both Coco and Serve have partnerships with Uber Eats and DoorDash. But the vision for the two startups extends far beyond burgers and burritos. Someday our kids are going to look back and think how weird it was that a person had to be attached to every package that comes to our front door every day, says Serves Kashani, who believes delivery robots true transformative potential lies in last-mile delivery. I ordered a pair of climbing shoes for my daughter, and it was the wrong size, he says. It took two days to come, and then I had to deal with the reverse logistics of shipping i back and waiting for the next pair. Well, instead of ordering from Amazon, I could have ordered from a local store. [A delivery robot] could have shown up with two, three sizes. The robot could have waited while we tried the shoes and taken back the ones that didnt fit. So you have all these new types of things that people can do that werent possible before because last-mile was just too inefficient and expensive. Serve started 2025 with roughly 100 robots. By December, it had built 2,000. Thats a point where it makes sense for the Walmarts of the world to want to integrate because now theres a fleet they can access, Kashani says, noting that Serves robots can accommodate more than 80% of Walmarts SKUs. How Coco and Serve approach safety Coco and Serve, along with competitors like Starship (which raised a $50 million Series C last October and announced at the time it planned to have 12,000 robots by 2027), are all, in a sense, bets on autonomy. Behind the scenes, human operators are training the robots and stepping in to resolve problems. But the success of the model ultimately hinges on how well the vehicles learn to navigate neighborhoods on their own. Robot companies often point out that unlike self-driving cars, bots can usually just hit the brakes to de-escalate an encounter or avoid a collision. Its usually appropriate to stop, right? A car cant just stop; you might cause an accident, says Rash, acknowledging, though, that the sidewalk is a much less structured environment with a lot more chaos. If my robot stops in the middle of a sidewalk, nothing bad happens, echoes Kashani, adding that Serve robots have thousands of times less kinetic energy than a car. That also gives us some affordances. Because we are moving more slowly, we have more time to think. So we dont need as expensive of sensors, for example, or as many computers to achieve the same thing [as a self-driving car]. But despite those advantages, combined with years of training data, robots are still making mistakes. Social media abounds with robot bloopersand worse. In one recent example, a high-speed passenger train in Miami mowed down a delivery robot stopped at a crossing on the tracks. Stopping, in that case, was fatal to the robot. In my own experience, one of the challenges pedestrians encounter with robots is simply their unpredictability. Cocos robots tend to drive more smoothly, perhaps a result of the startups choice to have human pilots more involved. “Coco has been operating in Chicago for over a year with strong community support and without any major incidents or safety concerns,” Rash says. “Safety and community partnership are our top priorities.” Serves robots, in contrast, are more reliant on lidar and AI; their stilted driving often reminds me of the remote-controlled toy car my son used to drive as a toddler. A Serve spokesperson tells Fast Company: We are working closely with city officials and local stakeholders to ensure responsible deployments, and we are committed to being a positive, safe, and respectful presence in the communities we serve. Knowing that the robot is designed to cede to pedestrians is little comfort when its jerking back and forth right in front of you. Whats next for Chicago Robot deployment in Chicago is still, technically, part of a pilot program. Two city agencies, the Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection and the Chicago Department of Transportation, are jointly involved in licensing and assessment. If the City Council doesnt renew the pilot, Coco and Serves licenses will expire in spring 2027. This week, one city alderman began soliciting feedback from his constituents as Coco and Serve seek to expand into other Chicago neighborhoods. Robertson, who created the anti-bots petition, is calling for an immediate halt to the program. The delivery robots promised benefits are appealing, he acknowledges, from reduced emissions to lower congestion. But I think we should be skeptical [of those claims] and make sure were taking a data-driven approach, he says. What if robot trips replace bike trips instead of car trips? Or what if opening our sidewalks to these little vehicles leaves the total number of trips in the street unchanged? We need data. Then Chicagoans will be able to decide for ourselves if thats how we want to tackle emissions and street congestion. Robertson also raises the problem of enshittification, a term coined by author and journalist Cory Doctorow in 2022 to describe the perhaps inevitable degradation of online platforms over time as they seek to wring greater profits from their users. Eventually, these robot companies, even if they do save consumers a buck or two right now on delivery fees, theyve got to make a return for their investors, people like Sam Altman, he says. (OpenAI cofounder and CEO Altman has invested in multiple rounds of Cocos funding; last spring, OpenAI and Coco announced a partnership that will make use of Cocos real-world data.) Already, ads supplement Serves revenue, turning some robots into rolling billboards and inserting the commercial into the public way. Last month in Chicago was bitterly cold and snowy, the kind of weather that drains robot batteries and presents obstacles to even all-terrain robot wheels. After growing accustomed to seeing Coco and Serve on a daily basis, I found myself wondering whether they were even attempting to brave the frigid January sidewalks. But I cant say that I missed them.
Category:
E-Commerce
Federal immigration enforcement officers operating in New York will soon be met by legal observers in purple vests. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced on February 3 that her office is launching an initiative called the Legal Observation Project. Trained legal observers from her officeincluding lawyers and other state employeeswill serve as “neutral witnesses” of the federal government’s immigration enforcement activity on the ground in the state, James’s office said. By observing and recording the actions of agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other federal agencies, which the public has a right to do, the observers will provide the attorney general’s office with information that could one day be used in future legal action if any laws are broken. By having a uniform, they are standing out and identifying themselves. “We have seen in Minnesota how quickly and tragically federal operations can escalate in the absence of transparency and accountability,” James said in a statement. “My office is launching the Legal Observation Project to examine federal enforcement activity in New York and whether it remains within the bounds of the law.” James’s office says specifically that observers from the initiative won’t interfere with enforcement activity and that their job is to merely document federal conduct safely and legally. Her office did not respond to a request for comment. The purple vests these observers wear will bear the insignia of the attorney generals office. They’re the latest example of state-level officials turning to colored vests amid President Donald Trump’s escalation of federal immigration enforcement. In Minneapolis, the Minnesota National Guard last month began wearing yellow safety vests so people could tell them apart from federal agents. In the absence of a single dress code, mostly masked federal officers from multiple agencies have worn a range of clothing, from jeans to fatigues and tactical vests in the Minneapolis area. The yellow vests are bright signifiers “to distinguish our members from those of other agencies, due to similar uniforms being worn,” as Minnesota National Guard spokeswoman Army Major Andrea Tsuchiya put it. A safety vest signals that the wearer wants to stand out and actually be recognized. In New York, the vests color “will aid in the ability of the trained legal observers to stand out in a crowd of bystanders and federal agents,” University of Minnesota College of Design faculty lecturer Kathryn Reiley tells Fast Company. “The federal agents tend to wear uniforms that are black, navy blue, or army green. The purple vests will produce the intended result of making the trained legal observers identifiable as a separate group of government employees that are not federal agents.” The ramping up of New York’s Legal Observation Project comes as the Trump administration is scaling down its enforcement efforts in Minnesota. On February 4, the administration said its withdrawing 700 officers immediately, about a 25% reduction. The reduction in force in Minnesota only came following public pressure made possible thanks to citizen footage that showed the reality on the ground in Minneapolis and galvanized the public against ICE. A 56% majority of U.S. adults have little or no confidence in the agency, according to the latest American Values Survey released this week by the nonpartisan research nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute, including 85% of Democrats, nearly two-thirds of independents, and more than one in five Republicans.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] next »