Since its inception in 1994, the MAC AIDS Fund, the philanthropic arm of cosmetics giant MAC, has given more than $450 million to organizations focused on the rights and health of women and the LGBTQ community. As vital as fundraising is, MAC has devoted just as much attention to increasing the cultural visibility of such marginalized groups–most recently by commissioning the documentary film More Than T.

In partnership with Showtime, More Than T profiles seven transpeople with seven vastly different stories to tell. The subjects giving such intimate accounts of their experiences fill a broad swatch of identities that extend well beyond being trans. There’s defense attorney Mia Yamamoto, minister Louis Mitchell, makeup artist Gizelle Messina, policy analyst Joanna Cifredo–just to name a few.

“There’s still a lack of diversity of stories and the way those stories are depicted,” says More Than T director Silas Howard. “I was looking for a story that was about humans that happened to be trans. You can’t two-dimensionalize someone when you actually see, ‘Oh, you’re this amazing artist; you’re this fierce defense attorney; you’re this chain-smoking, cussing minister who’s just full of heart’. I wanted to show people with their long list of amazing things that were above their gender and sexual identity, but also not dismiss that.”

“The very tenant and DNA of the brand is really around the community,” says Nancy Mahon, senior vice president of MAC Cosmetics and global executive director of the MAC AIDS Fund. “It’s evident that brands have a microphone. So what we’re doing with this film is trying to use the microphone to tell what we feel is a more human story of trans folks.”

“The days of simply having a spokesmodel-driven campaigns are over. It needs to be supplemented by more in-depth, real content,” Mahon says. “We specifically hired a trans director because to tell stories around trans folks and all of the challenges and issues that they face because the bottom line is, none of those pieces of legislation or employment practices are going to change until people know someone who is trans.”

However, because that heteronormative white narrative is still so pervasive, Howard’s success has saddled him with “the burden of representation.” People in the trans community like Janet Mock, Laverne Cox, and Howard are often the points of reference for others to say they know of someone who’s trans. That high-level of visibility is important, but More Than T‘s aim is to disseminate that visibility beyond those who have risen to celebrity status.

More Than T airs on Showtime June 23 at 7 p.m. EST.

WHAT: #BeTrue, a Nike ad that casts a spotlight on the undersung athleticism that goes into voguing.

WHO: Dancer Leiomy Maldonado, and writer/directer Daisy Zhao.

Every athlete can leave a mark in this world. @wond3rwoman1 Leiomy Maldonado takes the Nike #BeTrue collection to the ball. Click link in bio to read her new york made story and watch the full video.

A post shared by NikeNYC (@nikenyc) on Jun 22, 2017 at 8:52am PDT

WHY WE CARE: Leiomy Maldonado is known as the Wonder Woman of Voguing, and if you’ve seen her defy the laws of physics on America’s Best Dance Crew, you already know why. Now, the first-ever trans woman to appear on that show stars in the video Nike made for Pride Week, sharing her special set of skills with an even broader audience. The brand’s #BeTrue Pride campaign is meant to show solidarity with the LGBT community during a week of recognition. It manages to do so in a not-especially-thirsty way. Instead of, like, having RuPaul and the Babadook on a rainbow-colored seesaw, the ad simply gives the art of voguing some overdue athletic respect. We see Maldonado preparing in a number of ways, and then doing the damn thing, and by the end it’s hard not to feel tired just from watching. Rather than pandering, this is a subtle way to show voguing viewers that their pride is hard-earned.

The menu at Sonic Drive-In–a fast food chain that launched in the 1950s, where some servers still deliver food on roller skates–contains the standard burgers and fries and milkshakes that it always has. But if you visit certain restaurants in August, you’ll also have the option of the Slinger: a beef burger that’s made partly with mushrooms.

The restaurant is the first large chain to test a “blended burger,” a mushroom-beef burger with less fat and calories than the traditional version, a flavor that some consumers say is better, and a much smaller carbon footprint.

The restaurant isn’t the first to experiment with mushroom-beef burgers, though it will be the first fast food chain to do it at a large scale. The Blended Burger project, which is run by the mushroom industry trade association the Mushroom Council and the James Beard Foundation and challenges chefs to create recipes for patties that include at least 25% mushrooms, is currently running its third nationwide contest with a long list of chefs. Both school and corporate cafeterias have adopted blended burger recipes.

A study run by a third party for the Mushroom Council estimated that producing a pound of mushrooms has a carbon dioxide footprint of 0.7 pounds. A pound of beef, by contrast, has a CO2 footprint of 12.3 pounds–one of the most carbon-intensive foods on the planet. While some companies try to create fully plant-based burgers that taste like meat (and bleed like meat), or try to grow meat in a lab, the blended burger takes a different approach. It’s still meat, but with a lower footprint.

“Because it is still mostly beef, this burger has a broader appeal versus a completely vegetarian burger patty,” says Uehlein. The burger will be marketed for its taste, as a steakhouse-style burger, rather than for its environmental or health benefits. The mushrooms, with a savory flavor, add depth to the burger and make the patty thicker and juicier. Focus groups approved. In an earlier study of another blended recipe, consumers preferred a beef-mushroom mix in tacos to 100% beef.

After a 60-day trial in some yet-to-be-announced markets, Sonic will decide whether to make the blended burger a permanent offering at its more than 3,500 locations. “We have a strong test process where every new product is thoroughly tested for operational impact and consumer appeal, including in-market testing with advertising and merchandising,” says Uehlein. “If the product performs well in the market test, it will be considered for a national launch.”

In 1987, Mark Frauenfelder read an article in Whole Earth Review about the indie magazine revolution and thought to himself, “I’ve got to do a zine.” The next year, he and his wife started Boing Boing, a pop culture and technology publication. Frauenfelder was a mechanical engineer at the time; when Boing Boing launched in 1995 (first in print and then online), he kept his job in the disc-drive industry—and this was after he had joined the editorial team at Wired magazine two years earlier.

Frauenfelder did all this on the side and without any formal journalism experience, learning as he went and having fun every step of the way. He went on to found Make in 2005, a magazine that covered the growing “maker movement,” and a decade after that Frauenfelder self-published a book on magic tricks. He’s also an artist whose work graces the cover of Billy Idol’s 1993 album Cyberpunk.

This is just how Frauenfelder’s brain works; he can’t stay stuck on one thing for too long. “For better or for worse,” he told me, “I am really interested in a lot of different things, and trying things out myself to see what it’s like to actually experience producing media or other things is always interesting.”

That’s an underappreciated hallmark of successful creatives—they’re rarely specialists in just one thing. In fact, too much focus can prove risky.

Related:Why You Really Need To Collaborate Less

The Rule Of The Portfolio

When asked, “What do you do?” most of us tend to answer with a one-word reply or start describing our work duties. But since when does a single job description define what a person is capable of? Whether we realize it or not, many of us assume that we’ll eventually have to commit to a certain path in life, spend most our career doing that one thing, and not veer too far from it or else sabotage our professional success. This, we think, is what mastery is all about.

It isn’t. Your career can always change and evolve—in fact, the most creative ones need to regularly. In order to thrive, you have to master more than one skill. In the Renaissance, people embraced this intersection of different disciplines, and those who blended them best were rightly called “masters.” Frauenfelder says he has a hard time answering when people ask what he does. “What I do is just pick one thing, and I’ll say, I’m a magazine editor, or a writer, or a blogger . . . I’m just generally a person who will do things that require creativity and communication.”

While it doesn’t fit neatly into a job description, Frauenfelder’s career rests on a rich, diverse portfolio that allows him to do interesting and creative work for a lifetime—even though it isn’t what you might call “focused.” But in order to thrive in new creative age, you have to master multiple crafts; one former Ideo designer writing for Fast Company last year, described the competitive advantage of the “comprehensivist”: Would you rather hire a writer who’s only good at crafting prose, or one who also understands marketing? Would you prefer to work for a boss who only knows how to treat people with respect? When we develop a diverse portfolio of work, we do better and more interesting work, and we tend to avoid becoming obsolete so quickly.

A Distractible Mind

That doesn’t mean creative professionals don’t genuinely struggle with a lack of focus. Sometimes it’s hard to commit to something and see it through to the end—but even this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. A wandering mind can be an asset if you learn how to use it.

In 1985 Michael Jackson famously paid $47.5 million for a music catalog that included 250 songs by the Beatles. At the time, people in the industry thought the deal was crazy, but Jackson knew the Beatles catalog was invaluable. In the decades since Jackson’s purchase, the value of those songs has increased more than 1,000%, to over $1.5 billion.

The acquisition was one of the greatest deals in music business history, but it wasn’t initiated by a producer or label executive. Had Jackson been focused solely on writing and performing his own music, he’d never have orchestrated an eight-figure acquisition of somebody else’s. But he was doing just what thriving artists do: He wasn’t going all-in on one big bet—he was diversifying his portfolio.

To spot the right places to invest your time and resources, you need what Darya Zabelina calls a “leaky mental filter.” A researcher who teaches at Northwestern University, Zabelina says there’s a link between creative achievement and the ability to hold multiple, conflicting ideas in mind at once. This preserves the tension between those ideas so that they naturally build upon one another. “People with leaky attention might be able to notice things that others don’t notice or see connections between things,” she told me, “which might lead to a creative idea or creative thought.”

That’s what allowed Michael Jackson to see something nobody else saw. It let Mark Frauenfelder work on Boing Boing and Wired at the same time, not to mention countless other projects. Both pursuits competed with each other for his time and energy, and both flourished. Under the right circumstances, being distractible can be a strength.

“If you think about the most creative people,” therapist Chuck Chapman told me, “they’re the ones who innovate. They come up with the ideas, and I think the fact that your brain is going so fast all the time and seeing so many possibilities—that’s what creates innovation.”

This article is adapted with permission from Real Artists Don’t Starve: Timeless Strategies for Thriving in the New Creative Age by Jeff Goins.

Back in April of last year, Ice Cube was watching Kobe Bryant close out his 20-year career in his final game with the Los Angeles Lakers. Seeing an athlete like Bryant retire yet still able to post a staggering 60 points gave Ice Cube the idea to create BIG3, a professional three-on-three basketball league featuring former NBA players.

It’s a daring venture considering the veritable graveyard of forgotten sports leagues created in the vein of giants like the NBA and NFL. Remember the XFL, United States Football League, or World Basketball League? Exactly.

“When you have an idea, you’ve got to give it room to make sure it’s a good idea,” says Ice Cube. “You’ve got to note it in your brain and then just keep building on it. I’m all for looking at the pros and cons of a major decision. So I started to talk to [BIG3] co-founder Jeff Kwatinetz who’s my manager and business partner. And we started to think about why this is a bad idea, what could go wrong, and why it won’t work. And we couldn’t come up with a lot of reasons why this wouldn’t work.”

The reason for Ice Cube’s confidence is that he and his executive team don’t consider BIG3 to be in competition with the NBA. The rules and format of BIG3 are fundamentally different than the NBA’s (half-court play, a four-point shot, games played until 60 points, etc.) In addition to that, there will be four matches played per night, lending the league somewhat of a festival feel. But what Ice Cube and Kwatinetz are really banking on is being able to tap into basketball fans’ existing connection to three-on-three basketball and to the already established players.

“[Three-on-three basketball is] played hundreds of times more than full-court, five on five–especially at the younger levels. So it’s not like we invented a sport that people don’t already have a connection to,” says Kwatinetz. “The second thing is, we don’t have a league of old guys. These are guys who are elite professionals and most of them are only a couple of years out of the league. Some of them aren’t even out of basketball–they’ve been playing overseas and other types of ways.”

“It’s a different evolution of a game that plays into the strengths of our players,” Kwatinetz continues. “Basketball IQ is really important in the game, as is fitness and strength and skill. But it’s not the NBA. Basketball leagues in the past have tried to emulate the NBA with players that couldn’t make it into the NBA. So when people are watching it’s basically just watching a poor man’s NBA.”

Choosing the right players has been a crucial component to building BIG3. There was a draft in April to select the 40 players across eight teams. And one of BIG3’s immediate challenges will be to prove to fans and viewers that the league isn’t a novelty or something like an All-Star game where it’s more about showmanship than competition.

“Ultimately, we’re going to be judged by the quality of play on the court. We can do all sorts of sensational business deals, we can have great sponsorship deals–that’s not what will interest fans,” says BIG3 CEO Amy Trask. “Fans will be interested if the quality of the games is good. The practice I attended underscored for me how competitive these games will be and how committed the athletes are to playing winning basketball.”

If it’s any indication of BIG3’s possible success, the International Olympic Committee recently announced the addition of three-on-three basketball to the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. The existing and growing interest in three-on-three basketball worldwide is the reason for Ice Cube and Kwatinetz’s scramble to put a league together, essentially from scratch, in just six months.

“We needed to launch because we felt like this idea was so good somebody would beat us to it,” Ice Cube says. “Our biggest enemy has been time. We started in January and we’re about to play Sunday. It’s just been one of those endeavors where you know it’s going to be hard but hard doesn’t mean impossible.”

Even under stringent time constraints, BIG3 managed to secure FOX Sports as its broadcast partner. It certainly isn’t a bad start, but Ice Cube is already looking past now toward what he wants BIG3 to ultimately be.

“As we do more and more of these, we’ll get better. Things will get smoother. I would love to get to that point where it’s really all about growing the league, and it’s not about picking colors for uniforms or logos–even if that kind of stuff is fun,” Ice Cube says. “We think that once people see what we have, they’ll be excited. Right now, it’s a lot of explaining what the game is and what we’re trying to do. So we feel like the best way to explain to people what we got is to show them.”

BIG3 tips off June 25 at the Barclays Center in Brooklyn. Get the full schedule here.

How many times have you gotten this type of message? “Just sending a friendly reminder to please . . .” And how many times have you sent it?

You might think that “friendly reminder” emails are a nice attempt to be professional while disguising your actual annoyance at whoever’s holding you up from finishing something. In other words, it’s just a non-confrontational way to ask for something that’s late.

Well guess what? That’s all a misguided fantasy and it’s making everybody you email with secretly resent you. You need to stop doing it–immediately. Here’s why, and what to write instead.

It Can Undercut Your Credibility

Most of my team is remote, so we conduct most of our communication via videoconferencing. So when I need something from a colleague, I can no longer walk into his or her office and ask for it directly. Instead, I have to rely on email and Skype for Business to get stuff done.

But the risk of defaulting to email is that the friendly reminder is usually contaminated by the word “just”–a hedge word. “Hedge words” are modifiers that soften the blow of your statements, like “kind of,” “maybe,” “actually,” “probably,” and “really,” among others. We frequently insert these words into our writing to convey a softer tone. But they can hurt your credibility in the workplace and even make you sound less confident than you feel.

Related:Three Ways To Write Shorter, More Effective Emails

A couple of years ago, Ellen Petry Leanse, a former executive at Apple and Google, wrote a story for Women 2.0 about how she found herself using words like “just” as a crutch. “It hit me that there was something about the word I didn’t like. It was a ‘permission’ word, in a way–a warm-up to a request, an apology for interrupting, a shy knock on a door before asking, ‘Can I get something I need from you?'”

Same goes for more overt “apology” phrases like, “I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s a very good strategy.” Why are you sorry for having an opinion? Or for expressing the views you worked hard to develop through education and hard work? Don’t be sorry. By the same token, don’t send “just a friendly reminder.” Send a reminder. Your statements will be clear, direct, and more likely to gain the respect necessary to follow through on the action you’re requesting. (Bonus prize: They’ll also be shorter.)

It Makes It Harder To Communicate With Higher-Ups

What if the person you’re asking is more senior than you? It’s often the case that the higher the rank of the person you’re reminding, the more subordinate your language becomes. What right do you have being bossy to someone who’s doing you a favor, right? Wrong.

Remember, you can be respectful without being a pushover. Good manners never go out of style. You can be polite and assertive at the same time by using proper salutations–your pleases and thank-you’s. So just stick to those. You’re not asking for a favor; you’re trying to get your job done, which benefits the company. True professionals see the big picture.

It’s Easy To Get Lost In Someone’s Inbox

What if your original request wasn’t deliberately ignored? Everyone gets thousands of emails, so yours always the run risk of getting lost in the shuffle. Don’t worsen your odds by sending email with extra hedge words–they’ll instantly sound less important.

Instead of sending a separate reminder email, simply resend the original message with a red “urgent” flag. Or better yet, pick up the–gasp!–phone. (I know, I don’t answer my phone either. But the phone-call attempt sends a strong message.) Try another method like IM, or schedule a 10-minute meeting with the person via calendar invite.

Before working at Polycom, a communications tech company, I never would’ve placed a 10-minute meeting on someone’s calendar in order to quickly request something. But it works! In Microsoft Outlook, if the recipient ignores the meeting request, the appointment still looms on their calendar until it’s declined–trust me, it’s actually a lot less passive aggressive than your friendly reminder.

Leila Lewis is customer marketing manager at Polycom. Throughout her career she has worked in marketing communications leadership roles in enterprise software, technology, education, and health care sectors.

This is a full transcript of the condensed and edited interview, which you can find here.

Fast Company: Why did you want to make a sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, and why now?

Al Gore: Well, a number of people have been encouraging me to make a sequel for quite a few years. I think one reason is that the first movie gave or seemed to give a big boost to the efforts to solve the climate crisis–at least a number of people have generously said that–and since we still have so much work to do, a lot of people over the last several years have asked me if I would be willing to make a sequel. In particular, Jeff Skoll, whose company Participant Media made the first movie, has been enthusiastic about trying to find a way to make a sequel. And parenthetically, I have to tell you that when the idea for the first movie was presented to me over a decade ago, I was actually skeptical about whether it was a good idea. I was consistent this time around and skeptical once more. But I’m glad that wiser heads prevailed. I guess I was just worried about trying to attempt to make the second movie because the first one was so well received. But that was not a good reason not to do it. And I’m so glad they talked me into moving forward a second time.

FC: The movie balances a message about the urgency of the climate crisis with hope. I liked the scene in the movie where you visit a small, conservative town in Texas that’s now powered by 100% renewable energy. Can you talk about what that town represents about the adoption of renewables?

AG: Yeah, that’s one of my favorite scenes, too. Thank you. I think the achievements of Georgetown, Texas, are especially important because they demonstrate that all the wonderful work that has been done by innovators, by scientists, and technologists, and startups, and CEOs, has all come together to produce a startling revolution in renewable energy with solar and wind electricity now cheaper than electricity made from burning fossil fuels in many places around the world and many places in the United States. You know at Fast Company that there are some areas of technology that yield to research and development and then scale in ways that reduce the costs dramatically even as the quality goes up at the same time. And the exciting development is that that pattern applies to renewable energy. Georgetown, Texas–a very conservative community–took a close look at the economics of all the options available to them. Partly because they have a CPA as the mayor, they made the bold decision to follow the economics and break free from the patterns of the past, and they’re enjoying the benefits of that decision now.

FC: Many people have argued that wind and solar power are now cheap enough that they will continue to grow regardless of what happens politically. Some corporations are also committing to ambitious climate action. How much do you think the business world can accomplish on its own without strong policy?

AG: Well, many parts of the business world are way ahead of most of the political world, at least in the U.S. I do believe that the underlying technological and economic trends guarantee that the shift to renewable energy and to sustainability in general will continue regardless of what government policies are adopted. However, the pace of change can be profoundly accelerated with the right government policies. And it’s important to always remember that we’re still putting 110 million tons of global warming pollution into the Earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours–treating it like an open sewer–and much of it will remain there for hundreds of years. Some of it will remain there for thousands of years. The scientific projections, which have been proven so correct in the predictions made decades ago, now tell us that if we don’t accelerate the pace of change, the damage done to the prospects for human civilization would be quite severe. So it is important that we have the right policies.

For example, the subsidies around the world for the burning of fossil fuels are 40 times larger than the meager subsidies for renewable energy. And if we removed all subsidies, the pace of change would accelerate even more. But of course I believe we should continue and amplify the encouragement for a faster shift to renewable energy and sustainability while eliminating these absurd subsidies that encourage the destruction of the Earth’s ecological balance.

FC: In the movie, on November 10, you call the 2016 election a setback and say that it’s one of a long line of setbacks in addressing climate change. How much damage do you think the new administration could do, or how much maybe has it has it already done? [Note: This conversation took place before Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.]

AG: Well, it’s important to remember that we haven’t even reached the 100-day mark of our new administration. And so it’s difficult to predict. Some of their early policy decisions have of course been discouraging, but they may yet decide to stay in the Paris agreement, which is the most important decision relative to climate. It’s almost impossible to overstate the significance of what happened in Paris, a year ago December, when every nation in the world (save a few exceptions hardly worth mentioning), agreed to go to net-zero greenhouse emissions early in the second half of this century. Because that sent a signal to business, to industry, to investors, to local and regional governments, and to national governments everywhere. And that signal has been received. The pace of change has accelerated dramatically since the Paris agreement was formally adopted. And if the U.S. does–in spite of President Trump’s changes to the Clean Power Plan and other U.S. policies–if the U.S. stays in the international consensus then that will continue to accelerate the pace of change.

FC: What do you think it would mean if the U.S. actually did pull out of the Paris agreement? What consequences would that have?

AG: Well I don’t think they’re going to. I think the odds are better than even that they will stay in the agreement. If the U.S. does pull out, it would raise a risk of undermining the hard-won global consensus. But I would be surprised if they make that decision.

FC: There’s a scene in the movie that shows your work behind the scenes at the Paris conference, and how you convinced SolarCity to donate some of its technology to India to address concerns India had about the cost of renewables. Can you talk a little bit about why it was so critical to get India on board and how much importance you think that donation played in actually making the Paris agreement happen?

AG: Well, according to the environment minister of India and according to the U.S. participants in that tough negotiation, it helped to get them across the line and withdraw their objections to having a strong treaty. I give tremendous credit to Lyndon Rive and Peter Rive and the leaders of SolarCity, and to Elon Musk, who chairs the SolarCity board and who has a history of giving up intellectual property for larger strategic goals. He invented the Hyperloop idea, for example, and just gave it away. Some of the key intellectual property involved with Tesla he gave away to see what others could do with it. I knew that history, and I know Elon and Lyndon very well, so I had an inkling that it might just barely be possible to convince them to to make this generous and visionary offer. And after only 24 hours of thinking it over, they agreed to do it. The Indians were the real key to the agreement, because unlike China, they had not yet resolved in their own minds the risk/benefit equation for joining the world’s sustainability revolution. As you know, India is almost as populous as China now, and will shortly overtake China as the largest nation on Earth. And even though India’s economy is much, much smaller than China’s economy, they are growing faster than China, and their choices of energy sources to fuel that growth could make all the difference for the future of humanity.

FC: Going back to the U.S., what do you think are the opportunities for the federal government to make progress now? For example, do you think there’s a chance of a carbon tax happening?

AG: Well, I hope so. I’ve advocated a revenue-neutral CO2 tax since the late 1980s, and I included it in my first book on climate, Earth in the Balance. But in the years since, I’ve come to appreciate the durability of the resistance to a CO2 tax. And along with others, I came to support an alternative, the so-called cap and trade system, which had been dramatically successful in removing sulfur dioxide from power plant emissions and helping to mitigate the acid rain problem, which we don’t hear about much anymore because it’s so much less severe now than it was before cap and trade reduced SO2. That was a conservative Republican idea that originated in the Heritage Foundation and was adopted by the first President Bush. So many people who ran into a brick wall in advocating a CO2 tax began to encourage the cap and trade system as a second-best alternative.

I still prefer the CO2 tax. And by the way, in 1993, I persuaded President Clinton and the economic team of our then-new incoming administration to include a carbon tax and our principal economic package in January of ’93. It passed the House of Representatives by one vote, but then foundered in the Senate. Then in the aftermath of that failure to enact a carbon tax, many of us said well, if cap and trade system is the best we can get, and if conservative Republicans can be given credit for originating this idea, maybe they will make it easier to form a bipartisan consensus around that idea. But they quickly abandoned it as soon as it became leading policy choice. Once again it passed the House of Representatives in the first year of Obama’s administration and foundered in the Senate.

But I favor both. I would like to see both a CO2 tax and a cap and trade system, and a few countries that have adopted both have done extremely well economically and in reducing emissions. Now that there are some prominent Republican senior statesmen advocating a carbon tax, including George Schultz and James Baker, and a number of others; there is a little bit of renewed hope that maybe it will gain some altitude. But I’ve learned over the years that the resistance, as I’ve said before, is quite durable. Even China, China changed its whole approach to the climate crisis partly because they have to deal with the co-pollutant air pollution that’s making their cities unlivable. And they tried to build support for a CO2 tax in China and they defaulted to the cap and trade system that they are implementing nationwide this year. So one way or another, either directly or indirectly, we have to put a price on carbon pollution and accelerate the reduction of these emissions in order to avoid the catastrophic consequences of global warming.

FC: Why do you think we need both cap and trade and a carbon tax?

AG: Well I’m not predicting that we will have both. Please understand I’m just telling you my personal preferences. But the reason I think we ought to have both is that that policy has worked extremely well in Sweden, for example. And I think that both approaches have their own distinctive benefits. If I had to choose one I would choose a carbon tax as long as it was of sufficient size to really solve the crisis. The benefits of the cap and trade approach include giving different businesses and industries the flexibility to use market forces as an aid to their emissions reduction trajectory. The first movers that make a commitment make money, boost profits while reducing emissions, and others that are slower off the mark begin to see that it’s in their economic interest to accelerate the pace. That’s what happened with sulfur dioxide and I’m sure it’s what will happen with an adequate cap and trade approach with respect to CO2. And by the way, California is moving ahead on its own. New York state is moving ahead. A number of other states and quite a large number of cities and local governments are moving forward. There is a third policy option in the mix I should mention, and that is some form of regulation like a renewable energy portfolio standard, I’m sure you’re quite familiar with that. And the number of cities that are now committing to go to 100% renewable energy is quite impressive. And the number is growing every day.

FC: What can you tell me about your meeting with President Trump in December?

AG: Well, I appreciate and respect the question. But I have followed a policy of not violating the privacy of those exchanges. And the reason is that for eight years in the Clinton-Gore White House I always protected the privacy of my conversations with President Clinton, and I believe that any president who enters into a set of confidential exchanges deserves to have them treated privately. And so forgive me if I don’t violate that rule, but I’ve learned, it seems like the right approach to me, and it also safeguards the opportunity for a continuation of the dialogue.

FC: Did you feel any differently after that meeting, or any more hopeful than you had going into it?

AG: It was an interesting conversation. And whenever you talk with someone face to face, you have the opportunity to adjust your preconceptions. Of course, many of the early policy moves by the Trump administration have been discouraging where climate is concerned. But again, I believe the most important decision is whether or not he decides to remain in the Paris agreement. And again, I’m optimistic that he will.

FC: You’ve said that in order to fix the climate crisis we need to fix the democracy crisis. Can you talk a little bit about how you think we can begin to do that, particularly with the problem of big money in politics?

AG: I’m gathering my thoughts so that I can be succinct. I’ve written a book about this—I’ve written two books about it, actually, so I won’t beleaguer you was a long answer, but basically we’ve seen two tectonic shifts in the technologies that support the conversation of democracy. The shift to a print-based civilization 500 years ago actually led to the modern version of representative democracy. And the shift from the printing press as the dominant means of communication to electronic broadcasting installed the gatekeepers that charge enormous sums of money for the privilege of communicating with the public on a constant repetitive basis. And that shift was depressing for the dynamism of democracy.

But now we have a third shift that will almost certainly become more important than either the printing press or electronic broadcasting, supplemented by cable and satellite. And that, of course, is the internet and social media. And with all of its problems, the internet once again removes the gatekeepers and allows individuals to gain an audience based on the perceived value of what thoughts they’re expressing and the way they express them. I believe that the internet brings with it a realistic hope for reestablishing the dynamism of American democracy. Already we see every important reform policy reform movement living and breathing on the internet.

And as more people, particularly in your generation, begin to rely more on the internet and social media than older technologies, we see bloggers now affecting policy debates. We see digital fact checkers blowing the whistle on these big lie campaigns that still flourish in television advertising–the climate deniers, for example–and I’m actually quite optimistic that this trend will continue. And you know the Bernie Sanders campaign last year– I’m not endorsing his platform, I agreed with some of his ideas and disagreed with others. But I want to give him all the credit he deserves for proving that a serious nationwide presidential campaign can now be mounted without any special interest money. By relying exclusively on small contributions over the internet from people who agree with the ideas a candidate expresses. That’s the way democracy is supposed to work. Ideas, the best available evidence, vision, a sensible course for the future–that should count for a lot more than some enormous fat cat’s contributions of money in return for special favors in policy designed to support their source of revenue.

FC: Do you think that we can restore political discourse–whether it’s on the internet or otherwise–quickly enough to address what needs to happen regarding climate change?

AG: I sure hope so. I see that happening now. I’m very fond of the wisdom expressed by the late economist Rudy Dornbusch, who I had the privilege of knowing and working with. He once said that things take longer to happen than you think they will. But then they happen much faster than you thought they ever could. And I see that pattern taking place in America today. I’ll give you a quick example. If someone had said to me even five years ago that gay marriage would be legal everywhere in the United States and would be supported and celebrated by the overwhelming majority of the American people, I would have said well I sure hope so, but I’m just not sure if that’s realistic. But that has happened. And it’s not only technological revolutions that often will follow that exponential pattern. Social revolutions do as well. The civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the abolition movement long before, the anti-apartheid movement. And as I’ve just mentioned the gay rights movement. All of these revolutions seemed at times almost hopeless to many of the advocates. But once the underbrush was cleared away, and the ultimate choice was resolved into a binary decision between what’s right and what’s wrong, then it began to happen with lightning speed. And I think that’s where the climate movement is right now. We are right at that inflection point.

FC: I’ve seen in recent polls that more Americans than ever before are worried about climate change. But it still isn’t a top priority for most. How do you think that it can become a priority when many people are concerned about issues that seem more immediate, like their job, or health care, or whatever else?

AG: Well, two answers. First of all, the jobs in the solar industry are now growing, on an annual basis, 17 times faster than average job growth in the economy as a whole. The single fastest growing job description over the next 10 years is predicted to be wind power technicians. And as you see in the example of Georgetown, Texas, when the economics of emissions-reducing renewable energy crossover and become clearly more attractive than burning coal or gas or oil, then everything changes. In Kentucky–you may have noticed this story, I tweeted about it a week ago, and Tom Friedman had a column this morning in the New York Times–the Coal Museum in Kentucky just switched to solar energy. It saves them a lot of money.

FC: That’s great.

AG: Yeah, it is great! And that’s the first answer to your question. The second answer is that more and more people are actually beginning to make solutions to the climate crisis one of their top priorities. I would invite you to look at the recent coverage of the town hall meetings held by Republican members of Congress during this holiday break when they go back and have these meetings. It’s partly due to the Indivisible movement, but they’re being put on the spot in their town hall meetings about the climate crisis and they’re being held to account. That’s something not entirely new, but the scale and vigor with which people are taking them to task is really very different now.

And I think one of the reasons for that is not only the changes in the way we’re all communicating among ourselves, but maybe an even bigger reason is that Mother Nature has joined this debate or this discussion. And the climate-related extreme weather events are now increasingly impossible for people to ignore. You take Houston, the center of the global petroleum industry. In one 12-month period last year they had two 500-year floods, and one 1,000-year downpour. And in fact, they’ve had another huge rain with flooding just this week. So after a while people say, “Wait a minute, this is not an abstract debate. This is affecting my life.”

FC: As you’ve thought about how to talk to people about climate change over the years, and there is the issue that a lot of changes will come in the future and it’s sort of hard for people to wrap their minds around that–not the immediate effects, but what will come in the next century–what have you learned about the most effective ways to communicate with people about climate change, or to persuade people who aren’t concerned about it?

AG: Among the lessons I’ve learned is the importance of conveying realistic hope. Because despair can be paralyzing, and the fear of these consequences–whether long term, mid-term or short term, is not necessarily the most effective way to change minds and motivate people. But when you can convey hope in a realistic way, that unlocks a higher fraction of the potential for change.

FC: To shift topics, I know you run an investment management firm that focuses on sustainability. How long do you think it will take–or is it already happening–for sustainability to be a standard consideration for all investment firms?

AG: I think that change is accelerating. When sustainability is fully integrated properly into the investment process, the evidence now indicates that returns can improve. There is voluminous academic research now showing that in most sectors of the economy, companies that fully integrate sustainability into their business plans are outperforming their competitors. It’s now best practice to fully integrate sustainability. It helps in ways that the CEOs and managers don’t necessarily think about in the first instance. For example, it helps tremendously in recruiting and retaining the best employees. Because again, particularly in your generation, people want to work for a firm that shares their values and a paycheck is crucial, of course, but taking pride in one’s work and feeling that the firm at which you’re employed is about more than simply making profit but also cares about doing the right thing and helping in its own way to make the world a better place. That is in itself a revolution that’s gaining speed.

FC: Do you think that consumer demand for that is also increasing?

AG: Absolutely, no question about it. And since the difference between profit and loss is usually at the margins, it doesn’t take a majority of consumers to express a preference for the most climate friendly and environmentally responsible alternative before businesses catch on and realize that they’re going to lose customers, they’re going to lose brand value, they’re going to lose some employees, they’re going to lose some of the enthusiasm of their workforce, if they don’t align themselves with what people feel is the right thing.

FC: For someone who wants to support climate action but doesn’t know where to begin. What would you tell them?

AG: Learn about it. Go to the movie. Read the book. The book will come out the same day as the movie in July. Then win the conversations you have about the climate crisis–don’t let climate denial go unchallenged. Be a conscious participant in the marketplace because your choices not only help incrementally, but exert leverage on businesses that is more powerful than your individual consumer choices. And then finally, participate in the political process. While changing the lightbulbs is important, changing the laws and policies is far more important. And that can happen when people do care about solving the climate crisis speak up, as these Indivisible members are doing at these town hall meetings, as others are doing by emailing and writing and calling the offices of their elected representatives. The threshold for popular democracy making a difference may be higher in an age when big money contributions still play an unhealthy role. But that threshold can be passed, can be crossed, and we’re now seeing the impact of all the people showing up at these town hall meetings already. There are now 30 Republican members of the House of Representatives who have changed their positions to be supportive of solving the climate crisis. We don’t need many more before we have a working majority in Congress. And it never should have been a partisan issue anyway.

FC: Why did climate change become a partisan issue?

AG: I think that the enormous expenditures by the climate deniers played the leading role. And I think that in the immediate aftermath of the great recession in 2008 they stepped up their spending and actively made it a partisan issue by threatening Republican members of Congress with the Tea Party primary opponents unless they toed the line. But now with enough members of the general public saying no, this is important to us, their ability to do that is being sharply diminished.

FC: To return to the movie, who are you hoping to reach with this, and what sort of impact are you hoping that it has?

AG: I hope that everybody will go to see it, of course, but I say that not just in an aspirational way but as an expression of my strong feeling that there’s no particular age group or demographic group that there is a special target for this movie. The first movie found resonance with people in in every demographic category and I hope that this movie will as well.

FC: What impact do you hope that the movie can have on our current trajectory?

AG: My greatest hope is that it will significantly increase the number of people who make this challenge a personal priority. And communicate that commitment to solving the climate crisis in their personal circle of friends and acquaintances, in their businesses and social networks, and then the political system. And that they do so as market participants as well. When enough people express that commitment in all those ways, we will solve this crisis, no doubt about it.

FC: What does what does ‘speak truth to power’ mean to you?

AG: It means using facts, as defined by the best available evidence, and a deeply felt conviction about what’s more likely to be true than not as the basis for demands expressed to those in political power, and those in power in the marketplace as well. And midway through the last century, Mahatma Gandhi spoke about what he called a truth force. The word he used in Sanskrit is one I can’t really necessarily pronounce correctly but it’s called Satyagraha. And Gandhi’s view was that truth has a force in human affairs and when it is passionately expressed, it can be the most powerful force for changing things for the good.

FC: How do you think that, especially now, how do we overcome the problem of fake news?

AG: The reading I’ve done about this has informed me that it’s been around since news itself has been around. It’s not in any way a new phenomenon. But it’s more visible on the on the internet when Russian-paid trolls and others who benefit economically from spreading fake news are given an incentive to make it a bigger phenomenon than it was in the past. And I welcome the recent statements by leaders of digital companies that they are recognizing that they have a responsibility to curate content and not just wash their hands of the responsibility that’s turned over to algorithms and bots. I think that over time there may well be self-healing dynamism that it kicks in.

FC: One thing I want to ask you, since I know you’ve really thought about such a wide range of issues deeply, how do you think that more people can become systems thinkers and rather than just specialists in one field, and begin to understand the bigger picture and many issues that are going on simultaneously?

AG: Boy, that’s a deep and thoughtful question. I’m not sure I know the answer to it. But I think that we are in the midst of a shift in the way we approach knowledge. I think people now are more likely to become thinkers in an age when knowledge is on the web and not just in silos, and the reductionist effect, the way we used to organize knowledge into these vertical silos, started changing really with environmental science. At least that’s where I first encountered that change. And I think that the increasing interconnections that are more visible and accessible on the web, have encouraged people to make that shift. In business the same is true. If you look, for example, at Germany’s manufacturing 4.0 initiative, they are essentially turning factories into computers. And when you do that you certainly have to adopt the systems approach.

FC: You have said that American leadership is necessary for climate action. Do you still think that, and do you think that we will be able to restore our political system to the point where the U.S. can lead the world on climate?

AG: Yes, I do. The old cliche it’s always darkest before the dawn springs to mind. Because I think that the new administration’s early moves on environmental policy are, as I said previously, certainly discouraging. But I think that there is a law of physics that has become something of a cliche in politics, and that is that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. There’s no doubt in my mind that the impressive energy and creativity and the Indivisible movement and the surge of support for progressive organizations and the voter turnout in that district in Georgia yesterday [during the run-off in the 6th congressional district], to pick one of many examples.

All of that is evidence that there is an equal and opposite reaction to Trumpism that is now taking hold in American democracy. I remember back in the early 1980s when then-President Ronald Reagan declared his opposition to arms control and called the Soviet Union the evil empire, and people began to worry much more about the nuclear arms race, what happened was the emergence of the nuclear freeze movements and many other popular based movements demanding that we slow and if possible halt the nuclear arms race, and President Reagan changed his mind and entered into a series of very productive arms reduction agreements with the then Soviet Union. And I think it’s possible that these first 100 days, almost, of the Trump administration will not necessarily define where American policy is a year from now, or two years from now, or four years from now, because the surge of progressive activism in response to President Trump is still building.

In mid-February of this year, Brent van Assen, the operations director for the Amsterdam-based bike company VanMoof, saw an alert come through the company’s network: A VanMoof customer in Paris had just reported their bike stolen. The Dutch company debuted what they call “the world’s first smart bike” in late 2015; when these bikes are pilfered, their owners can report them missing through an app, and a GSM tracking device embedded in the frame will show the bike’s location on VanMoof’s proprietary SmartBike tracking dashboard.

Recovering stolen VanMoofs is the job of the company’s team of “bike hunters“—a group made up of van Assen and another colleague in Amsterdam, another in Berlin, and one in New York who are charged with upholding the company’s pledge to return all stolen bikes to owners within two weeks or replace them, as part of VanMoof’s Peace of Mind guarantee. For the most part, bike hunting is a satisfying but not too difficult venture—most stolen bikes, van Assen tells Fast Company, rematerialize within a mile of where they were taken from.

So then, van Assen took a different route, and sought out where people can buy bikes in Casablanca. A different driver lead him to a massive warehouse, where van Assen saw around 300 bikes, many of them brand-new roadbikes valued in the thousands. The owner of the warehouse told van Assen that he buys all the bikes from trucks that come from Brussels and Paris; all of the bikes in the warehouse were, like the one van Assen was trying to find, stolen.

It was also a far cry from the more common experience of bike hunting. Usually, VanMoof tracks bikes that are secured on the street not far from where they were reported missing; in that case, bike hunters like van Assen will find the bike, lock it with a special lock (so the thief can’t move it), and come back with a lock cutter to saw through the thief’s lock. Once the bike is free, they bring it back to the VanMoof office, where the owner comes to collect it. More often than not, the cops are left out of the process. Bike theft is such a common crime, van Assen says, that they generally don’t drum up the concern to pursue a report.

For cyclists—especially urban cyclists—bike theft is a drudging fact of life. Law enforcement tends to scoff at reports of stolen bikes, and tracking one down is often a matter of scouring Craigslist, or just giving up. Buying an expensive bike to get around the city can feel akin to throwing money down the drain; in New York, grand larceny thefts of bikes worth at least $1,000 increased 64% between 2013 and 2014, with around 600 reported stolen.

But while the bike hunters and the Peace of Mind guarantee have been a successful marketing tool for VanMoof, it’s not exactly boosting the company’s profits. “We lose money on it,” Marchildon says. There’s a recovery fee of around $100 for bike hunters to do their thing, which is rolled into the cost of the bike through the Peace of Mind guarantee, but that does not, Marchildon says, necessarily absorb the cost of travel, nor does it offset the financial loss if the company is unable to return the bike and instead has to replace it. For the company, though, the message the guarantee sends to customers is more important—and the signal it sends to bike thieves may, in the long run, chip away at the need for bike hunters’ services–and lower the cost of the bikes by doing away with the need to account for the Peace of Mind guarantee.

“We want thieves to know that this is a bike you can’t steal, because we’ll just get it back,” Marchildon says. The SmartBikes have only been on the market for a year, but Marchildon and van Assen are optimistic that the thieves will soon wise up to the fact that if you steal a VanMoof, the joke will eventually be on you, and ultimately, thefts of VanMoofs will trail off. “We want to get the message out to the world that if you buy a VanMoof, the likelihood that it gets stolen will just be less and less,” van Assen says.

It’s easy to recognize negative people. They’re the ones who find the bad in any situation and never seem to be happy. Talking with them makes you feel heavy or tired, and you find yourself doing what you can to avoid them.

But what if you’re the negative one? We all have bad days and need to vent, but could you be chronically negative and not know it?

In order to identify negative tendencies in yourself, you need to understand how those negative tendencies develop in the first place, says AJ Marsden, assistant professor of psychology at Beacon College. “Our negative thoughts about ourselves develop over time due to perceived bad experiences,” she says. “When we think about our past experiences through a negative lens, we have a tendency to strengthen those negative thoughts.”

If you had a difficult interaction with a team member and later focus heavily on how it could have gone better, for example, you are engaging in strong self-criticism, says Marsden. “Over time, the more often you criticize yourself and dwell on negative thoughts, you end up literally strengthening those memories and making the connections between those neurons stronger,” she says. “The stronger the neural connection, the more likely we are to use those connections again in the future.”

It’s important to overcome negativity, especially if you’re a leader. “Negativity drains energy and sabotages talented teams,” says Jon Gordon, author of The Power of Positive Leadership: How and Why Positive Leaders Transform Teams and Organizations and Change the World.

It also affects your health, says Marsden. “Our mind influences our body, and when we are always negative and stressed out, it affects our body,” she says. “People with negative personalities are more likely to develop colds, get the flu, develop heart disease, and develop cancer than those who are more positive.”

To break out of the pessimistic cycle, you need to recognize negative thoughts and actions and change them. Here are four signs that you might be a negative leader:

1. You Focus On What’s Wrong

It can be discouraging to work hard all day for a manager who only comes in to point out what’s not working well. Gordon suggests keeping track of your interactions to determine how many are positive and how many are negative.

“You want to strive for a three to one ratio—three positive interactions for every negative one,” he says.

Always acknowledge what was done right and what’s working before you address what isn’t. Positive communicators encourage and inspire others. “With so many people telling us we can’t succeed, we need to hear people telling us we can,” says Gordon.

2. You Assign Blame

A negative leader’s first reaction to an issue is finding the responsible person to attack and blame. “Positive people focus on the problem not the person,” says Gordon. “They say, ‘Let’s solve this together,’ and work with their team rather than attacking them.”

But this process doesn’t mean not holding people accountable, says Gordon. Once a solution is found, identify why an underperforming employee is having trouble and coach them to solve the problem.

“You have to be demanding without being demeaning,” he says. “If your team knows you love them, they will allow you to challenge and push them.”

3. You Can’t Let Go Of The Past

Everyone has made mistakes, but focusing on past missteps in yourself and others creates a negative mind-set.

“Anyone pursuing anything worthwhile will fail and fail often,” says Gordon. “You can dwell on the past or look forward to making the next opportunity great. You can see life as a game of failure or opportunity. It’s all in how you see it.”

Recognize when you’re dwelling on negative thoughts, says Marsden. “Do not chastise yourself for negative thoughts—that, in and of itself, is a negative thought. Instead, recognize the negative thought as a negative thought and replace it with a good one.”

For example, if you think, “I can’t believe I made all those mistakes in that report. I’m such an idiot,” recognize that it’s a negative thought and most likely not true. “Positive thoughts should center on what you did correctly and how you will make sure you don’t make similar mistakes in the future,” says Marsden. “Remind yourself that everything will be OK. Recognize, don’t criticize, and correct. Try to generate at least four positive thoughts for every one negative one.”

4. You Motivate With Fear

Negative leaders can create success in the short-term by scaring their team to perform, but eventually fear doesn’t work and negative is not sustaining, says Gordon. “It’s draining,” he says. “Negative leadership will sabotage the team in the long run.”

Gordon likes to use the example of Silicon Valley during the Great Recession. “The whole country was talking about negativity and the economy and lost jobs,” he says, “Here Silicon Valley was asking, ‘What recession?’ They were too busy creating the future, believing in it, dreaming about it, and rallying their people to create it.”

If you’re not sure you’re a negative leader, go to the source, suggests Gordon. Ask your team, “What it’s like to be led by me?” “Do you feel energized working with me?” “Do I encourage you?” “Do you feel like I believe in you?” “Do you believe you accomplish more with me as your leader?” “Are you afraid of failure?”

“A negative leader leads by fear and people are afraid to fail,” says Gordon. “This is bad because they can’t take chances to succeed. Instead of creating something incredible, they play it safe.”

Growing up outside of Great Falls, a small Montana city, Shannon Scott worked on a ranch with what she remembers were “rough and tough” men—bailing hay, riding four-wheelers and horses, and branding cattle. Her coworkers saw her softer personality as a weakness, and for that she suffered name-calling and violence. Scott quickly learned there was a side of her that wasn’t safe to share.

Last year, the National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that nearly half of the almost 28,000 transgender adults it polled weren’t hired, were fired, or weren’t promoted due to their gender identities. The same report found that nine in 10 transgender employees either took steps to avoid harassment or experienced it in the workplace.

As Luke Jude, the executive director of the advocacy organization Yes Institute, points out, “Going through a gender transition can be scary for everyone—from the person transitioning to the top tier of leadership.” When she finally did transition, Scott found her manager to be hugely supportive, even bringing in a specialist to address her team. But it was a long road leading up to that point. Here’s what she’s learned about navigating—and minimizing—the pitfalls of transitioning at work.

Early Challenges

After high school, Scott joined the Air Force and served for a little over 11 years, including a tour for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Knowing she couldn’t transition while serving, Scott applied for jobs outside the military. After two years, she landed a highly technical role with the Federal Aviation Administration in 2011 as an airway transportation systems specialist. While in this role, Scott fully transitioned.

It was a predominantly male field, and many of Scott’s male coworkers struggled for quite some time with her transition. “But honestly, they always knew something was up,” she explains. “I was never really like them and could never really hang out like one of the guys.”

Scott’s biggest immediate challenge at work was one we hear a lot in politics lately: the restroom. She didn’t want any special accommodations, though, she “simply wanted to use the restroom with all the other women and ‘blend in.'” But Scott says her female coworkers expressed discomfort, which immediately made her uncomfortable, too. Fortunately, that tension gradually dissipated. She explains, “The situation solved itself when everybody realized that we were all just going to the bathroom, to go to the bathroom.”

Inappropriate questions were also a hurdle. “I remember the first time one of my male coworkers tried to talk to me about my genitalia,” Scott recalls. “Regardless of the fact that I knew the question would be posed, I was still incredibly uncomfortable having the conversation.” Scott’s advice: “If you haven’t been having in-depth conversations with your coworkers about their genitalia before transition, it certainly isn’t appropriate to be having them after. And in actuality, it is never appropriate!”

Work And Life After Transitioning

Less obvious are the ways people treat and relate to Scott now that she’s transitioned. When someone notices her overhearing a “guy conversation,” she says, they’ll sometimes give the speaker an elbow and apologize. “I’m no longer seen as one of the guys,” she says, “which is okay because I’m not and never really was.” Yet she wasn’t automatically “one of the girls,” either—it took some time to be accepted by other women.

Scott also says she watched as her coworkers’ expectations of her subtly changed. Her mostly male colleagues suddenly didn’t think she could lift heavy boxes. But that didn’t surprise her. What did surprise her “is that they also assumed I’d be much less able to accomplish highly technical troubleshooting tasks. It almost seemed as though once I transitioned, they assumed I lost a little bit of my intelligence”—an experience countless cisgender women can surely relate to.

What’s more, Scott’s male colleagues began only seeking assistance from other men in the office for things they’d once approached her about. “Maybe they didn’t want to have to ask the girl for help,” Scott muses. At the time, she didn’t feel ready or strong enough to confront these gender biases. “It wasn’t until much later in my transition that I became confident in who I was, and was able to stand up for myself once again,” Scott explains.

Her advice to others in similar situations is simply to “continue doing the very best work you can . . . and [to] take proper steps to ensure that your performance is given appropriate credit.”

Making Transitioning Easier For Everyone

As someone who has walked both paths, Scott has a few tips for making transgender employees feel more welcome.

First, simple as it sounds, if you want your coworker to feel supported, tell them! Scott suggests saying something like, “I’m so happy for you, and I want you to know that I’m going to support you in every way I can.” Then just ask, “What are some ways that I can best do that?”

Next, genuinely be their ally, Scott advises—and not just when they’re in the room. If someone is having an inappropriate conversation about someone who’s transitioning in the workplace, be the brave person and speak up.

Lastly, she says, just make sure your colleague is being treated respectfully, that they have a safe place to use the restroom, and that you know how to appropriately ask for their pronouns: Never ask what pronouns they “prefer”—it’s not a preference like chicken or fish, it’s an identity. The best way to do this when you’re meeting someone new is to first offer your own, and then ask what pronouns they use: “Hi, my name is Shannon Scott and my pronouns are ‘she,’ ‘her,’ and ‘hers.’ What pronouns do you use?” This way you avoid singling them out.

If a coworker you’ve worked with for a while is transitioning, just include this discussion when you first voice your support. You might add, “I realize we’ve never talked about pronouns before,” then share yours and ask for theirs. At any rate, the simple truth is you can’t assume someone’s gender identity simply by looking at them.

Some of these responsibilities fall to team leaders and managers, but anybody can take proactive charge and push for these steps to be taken. Scott points out that it’s also helpful for employers to have a written policy in place protecting employees from workplace discrimination—and that companies shouldn’t wait until somebody transitions to draw one up.

It turns out that 78% of transgender people surveyed felt more comfortable at work after their transition, and they also felt their workplace performance improved. Transitioning is never easy or simple, but this basic precept is: When trans employees feel supported, entire work cultures improve, and so do organizations as a whole.

If you talk to anyone in advertising long enough, often the root cause of any terrible ad is traced back to (or blamed on) the client.  The idea that clients suck is an ad industry stereotype of the highest order. On Friday, fresh off being awarded the Cannes Lions Marketer of the Year award, Burger King chief marketing officer Axel Schwan, and head of brand marketing Fernando Machado, took to the stage for a presentation called “How To Suck Less As A Client,” to outline five ways brands can make their relationship with ad agencies–and the resulting work–better.

Understand You Brand

Machado said that for Burger King, it boils down to two key questions. “We always ask ourselves: What makes our brand different? And what are our values and personality? And basically, that’s it,” he said.

The brand is known for its creative risk-taking–from 2004’s Subservient Chicken, to the creepy King, to hacking Google Home–and Schwan says that there’s no safe way to be edgy as a marketer. “Over time we’ve learned we are actually, as a brand, at our best when we are real, fun, and a little bit edgy–you see, client mistake–we are not a little bit edgy,” he said. “That is like being half-pregnant. So when we’re at our best, we are edgy. Period.”

Machado said that mediocre filler is the closest thing to failure. “Every time we became a little bit vanilla, a little bit generic, a little bit contrived, we failed,” he said. “We failed to land our brand message. We failed to cut through, and we failed to deliver business results.”

How do you "suck less" as a client? Really understand your brand says @BurgerKing at #CannesLionspic.twitter.com/M6psELcQKH

— Cannes Lions (@Cannes_Lions) June 23, 2017

Nail The Brief

Machado outlined the three ingredients to writing a good brief. “First, know your target audience really well,” he said. “Second, you need to uncover a powerful insight. And third, you need to have a really sharp articulation of what you want to communicate. Do not overcomplicate. If you do, you won’t be able to capture the fair share of the creative mind.”

Then he outlined the simple brief they gave agency DAVID Miami in 2014 for what became the award-winning Proud Whopper campaign. “We briefed the agency to bring to life the fact that we welcome everyone,” said Machado. “It was just, let’s show that BK welcomes everyone. That was it.”

Study. Plan. Research.

Schwan said clients should access and use as much research as possible, but don’t let it dominate the decision making process. “Research is a critical part of studying, but what we don’t believe in is simply doing everything the research institutes tell us to do,” he said. “Good clients, in our experience, use research to inform their views and to take responsibility to make their own decisions.”

The biggest risk is not taking one

Over the years, as Burger King has had a number of ad hits, Machado says that his peers in brand marketing often ask if there’s any fear in executing ideas that do seem a bit risky at the time.

“We are not afraid sometimes, we’re afraid all the time,” Machado said. “If you’re not afraid it probably means the work does not have enough voltage. We’re always afraid. As a client, if you’re interested in doing good work, the important thing is not to be fearless, the important thing is to be brave. To do it even though you are afraid.”

The ultimate question to taking a risk is, what’s the worst that can happen? The news cycle jumps quickly from one thing to another. “PR cycles are short and frequent, and tend to last between 48 and 72 hours,” said Machado. “The worst thing that can happen is not really much. If you completely f**ked up with your campaign, the nightmare will probably last for 24 hours. People move on.”

In fact, forget a PR disaster, Machado said the worst thing that can actually happen is to go unnoticed. “Every time we hit 2 billion impressions, we know it will become a meme,” he said. “That’s the game we are playing. When you’re creating a meme, you’re creating waves of pop culture.”

The Burger King makes an appearance at #CannesLionspic.twitter.com/2PP25RECQf

— Cannes Lions (@Cannes_Lions) June 23, 2017

Work as one team

Schwan outlined two components for how to build an effective internal team, and how that relates to outside agency partners. “The first is having a marketing team all around the world for Burger King that can work as one team,” he said. “If you are to take one thing, and only one thing out of this whole presentation–do you really seriously want to suck less as a client? Then don’t be a client, be a partner. Treat your agency as a partner. They are an extension of your own team.”

Microsoft has been using its Surface line to chase the dream of a laptop that transforms into a tablet for almost five years now. Through near-annual iteration, the Surface Pro has become thinner and lighter, while the display has grown larger, brighter, and sharper. Its kickstand has become more flexible, its stylus a more realistic simulation of a traditional writing instrument, and its attachable keyboard and trackpad cover more laptop-like.

The fifth-generation Surface Pro, which starts at $799, is the culmination of those efforts. With a handful of seemingly small changes, the new Surface Pro chips away almost every last flaw of its predecessors, and serves as a testament to what years of steady, incremental improvement can accomplish.

But the hardware’s excellence also underscores how the software has failed to keep up. I’ve owned a Surface Pro 3 for the past few years, and too often it feels like the baggage of Windows hinders the tablet experience Microsoft is working so hard to create.

Now, the company is running out of time to get it right. With Apple’s latest iPad Pro tablets, which will gain new PC-like features in iOS 11, the pursuit of a perfect laptop-tablet hybrid is no longer exclusive to Windows. And Apple might get there first.

Once More, With Feeling

Although Microsoft touts the Surface Pro as being 20% faster than the previous Surface Pro 4, with 40% longer battery life, most of its improvements don’t show up on a typical PC spec sheet.

The mid-tier model equipped with an Intel Core i5 processor, for instance, no longer needs a cooling fan. Nor does a new version running an Intel M3 processor. And the fan inside the Intel Core i7 model, which I tested, runs quieter and less frequently than its predecessors. The integrated kickstand is also more capable, swiveling around to within an inch of the tablet’s top edge for a slightly inclined drawing surface, which Microsoft points out is reminiscent of its high-end Surface Studio device. (On the downside, the new kickstand doesn’t make a satisfying snap when it closes, and I’m ambivalent about the new tablet’s more rounded edges.)

The Surface’s accessories received their own substantial changes. Microsoft now sells a more luxurious $160 version of its Type Cover keyboard, whose keys feel a bit snappier and which is covered in the same Alcantara fabric as the new Surface laptop. The Surface Pen is also now a separate $100 accessory–bummer–but it has quadruple the pressure sensitivity of the old pen, reduces latency to just 21ms, and lets you shade drawing by tilting its angle. (Apps must add support for tilt detection, and at the moment, few have.) You can also still use the new Surface Pro with the older pen, which costs $60 on its own. Both have a bit of texture on the tip, making them feel more like pen-and-paper than the iPad’s Apple Pencil, and last for months on AAAA batteries rather than requiring frequent recharging like the Pencil.

While none of these changes are drastic compared to the Surface Pro 4, they all help make the compromise between laptop and tablet less awkward. The keyboard now rivals that of any Mac or Windows laptop, yet there’s no longer persistent fan noise to remind users of the Surface’s laptop innards. And all of this comes without any sacrifice in processing power or portability. If you bought a Surface Pro a few years ago, the new Pro will feel like a substantial upgrade.

Windows In The Way

I won’t be among the upgraders, however. Like Microsoft, I’ve been intoxicated with the concept of laptop-tablet hybrids, so a few years ago I bought a Surface Pro 3, which I use for computing whenever I’m away from my Windows desktop PC.

But over time, I’ve become exhausted with Windows’ baggage, much of which the new hardware does not alleviate. Leave the new Surface Pro alone for an hour or two, and startup time jumps from tablet-like instantaneousness to a more PC-like 15 seconds. Windows’ routine updates and security patches are a constant nuisance, delaying startup and demanding restarts at inopportune times. Windows is also still prone to inexplicable weirdness. One example on the new tablet: At one point I couldn’t get the volume rocker to respond without rebooting.

The biggest problem of all, however, is battery life. Microsoft is advertising up to 13.5 hours of battery life in the new Surface Pro, a big step up from the Surface Pro 4’s nine hours and the Surface Pro 3’s eight hours. But that claim is based on watching video (streaming from the Surface Pro’s storage rather than across the internet), which doesn’t reflect the kind of professional uses that Microsoft promotes for the Surface Pro line. In my normal routine, which includes juggling multiple browser tabs in Vivaldi, editing Markdown documents in Typora, and conversing with team members in Slack, the Surface Pro used about two thirds of its battery from the morning through lunchtime. I wouldn’t count on it to last a full day. (A rule of thumb for all PCs, Microsoft’s included: Cut the advertised battery life in half for a more realistic estimate.)

Granted, Windows offers ways to minimize battery usage. There’s a “Battery Saver” mode that dims the screen and throttles the processor, and a section in Windows Settings that helps identify battery-killing apps. Microsoft is also fond of pointing out how its own Edge browser gets better battery life than Chrome (or Chromium-based browsers like Vivaldi). Yet with all those tools, the burden is on users to micromanage battery life. This just creates another distraction, one that doesn’t seem worth dealing with on a mobile device.

In fairness, I’ve had some great times over the years as a Surface Pro user. I have fond memories of playing Hearthstone on the touchscreen while checking Twitter in a sidebar view, and I enjoy being able to play games in any room with an Xbox controller while folding the Surface’s keyboard out of the way. I’m not an artist, but I have used the Surface Pen to sign documents–including a fairly intense home-buying process while out of town. And sometimes, it’s just nice to scroll along on a touchscreen instead of the trackpad, even while using a desktop web browser in laptop mode.

Last week, however, I bought a 10.5-inch iPad Pro, with the intention of using it in most of the scenarios where I’d previously pulled out the Surface. Apple’s tablet is now powerful enough for the kind of multitasking that once required a PC, and the upcoming iOS 11 will add PC creature comforts such as an app dock, system-wide drag-and-drop, and a proper file browser that integrates with cloud storage services. Even without iOS 11, I’m already enjoying the iPad Pro’s superior battery life, instant wake time, and lack of weird Windows-like glitches.

What’s Next For Surface?

Microsoft does have a couple of plans to give Windows the speed and efficiency you’d expect from a tablet. The first is a specialized version called Windows 10 S–available as an optional install on the Surface Pro–which only lets you run apps from the Windows Store, and is already installed by default on the new Surface Laptop. The second, coming later this year, is support for ARM-based processors, including the chips that Qualcomm uses in high-end smartphones and tablets. Those devices will support traditional desktop programs from outside the Windows Store, but only through an emulation layer that’s meant to be used sparingly. (It’s too early to know if such chips will show up in future Surface devices.)

In both cases, Microsoft is trying to gain more control over the software that runs on its platform, so it can manage resources more efficiently through processes like power throttling. But that plan comes at a price: Microsoft’s app store still doesn’t feel like a vibrant ecosystem compared to the wider Windows software world, or to iOS and Android for that matter. I’ve yet to find, for instance, a Markdown editor, calendar app, or email client from the Windows Store that I really enjoy using, and high-quality music-creation apps are practically nonexistent. Microsoft’s store also doesn’t offer the kind of must-have art and design programs that the Surface Pro is designed to run, such as Adobe Photoshop and Autodesk’s AutoCAD.

Besides, once you strip away the unrestrained freedom of full-blown Windows, what’s left that’s still worth caring about? For many people, the ability to run all sorts of wacky PC programs–battery efficiency be damned–is the entire point of a device like the Surface Pro.

The undeniable, expansive versatility of Windows is why I don’t think the Surface Pro is in imminent danger. The PC market has stabilized in recent months, and within it, Microsoft’s Surface line has carved out a healthy niche. Still, it’s hard to envision how the mainline version of Windows will shed its baggage. And over time, that means more people like me will realize they can do fine without it.

As technology companies continue to creep into every aspect of our lives, they’re also becoming some of the hottest places to work. Whether it’s the prestige, the perks, or the prospect of building cutting-edge products, lots of people want to work for companies like Google and Facebook.

As a college student, one way to gain an “in” at these companies is to land an internship, an unsurprisingly competitive endeavor. Former interns at Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft and Tesla shared their experience with Fast Company‘s Michael Grothaus, divulging what they believe helped them snag internships at tech giants. Here’s what we’ve learned.

1. Start The Process Early

Thinking about internships in freshman year might seem early, but sometimes, getting yourself in the pipeline as early as possible pays off when internship application season finally comes around.

That’s how Kerry Wang, graduate student at Stanford and former product sales lead intern at Google landed her position. She saw a flier for Google’s BOLD Discovery program–a scheme designed for undergraduate freshmen. She was accepted and spent three days in Google’s New York office, immersed in its culture and business operations. Two years later, the recruiter for the BOLD program reached out to her and suggested that she apply for an internship at the search engine behemoth. Her application was fast-tracked and she was offered the position.

Related: The Five Most Important Things To Do During Your Summer Internship

2. Get Some Practical Experience

There’s a perception that Silicon Valley largely recruits talent from Ivy League colleges. But almost all of the former interns who spoke to Fast Company said that previous practical experience helped them tremendously in landing the internship.

Maxime Britto, a former Apple intern who subsequently founded Purple Giraffe–a French mobile school for online developers–was fixing bugs at another company before he landed his Apple internship. That company, Pleyo, contributed to an open source project whose members were Apple employees. Britto found out through his manager at Pleyo that the Apple workers were very happy with what he’d produced. When he was called in for an interview, it was a relatively short process as they were already familiar with his skills and work.

Will Lawrence, former Microsoft intern, told Fast Company that his project management chops helped him land the internship. “Having managed projects in two tech startups prior to this internship, I had demonstrated the ability to set agile development goals, prioritizing features, and working with a Scrum board–tasks that we ended up doing every day of the internship.”

3. Know How To Build Something

Having experience building a product isn’t a prerequisite, but it can certainly help.

Eddie Wattanachai Lin, a former Tesla intern, believes that one of the things that made him stand out was participating in the FSAE series–a rigorous engineering design competition for graduates and undergraduates. In his freshman year, he also worked on a biofuel startup. He told Fast Company, “Somewhere between setting up and running my own lab, product development with extremely hazardous materials, and learning to drive a forklift, my interviewers were convinced I would go the extra mile.”

4. Understand The Products Inside And Out

Most big tech companies are extremely product-centric, so understanding the ins and outs of how their products work is always a plus when applying for an internship. It’s especially important to be familiar with products that might not be so well-known. Wang told Fast Company that one piece of advice she’d give to aspiring Google interns is to familiarize themselves with Google’s range of products. “Everyone knows something about Search, Android, and Maps. Set yourself apart by learning about other Google products such as AdSense, Hangouts, and Duo.”

Related:How To Make Your Internship Experience Sound Like A Real Job 

Utkarsh Sharma, former Facebook intern and soon-to-be Facebook employee, said there are a lot of factors that go into someone being hired at Facebook–including a passion for the mission. For many tech companies, fulfilling their mission involves making improvements to their products, or building new ones. Understanding how that aligns with their long-term vision as a company will go a long way.

5. Have A Unique Value Proposition

Ultimately, scoring a competitive internship involves standing out from other applicants. Candidates need to show that they have something unique to offer, and what that is depends on each individual and the role they’re after.

For Lawrence and Sharma, their communication skills stood out–though for different reasons. Lawrence told Fast Company that a major component of his internship turned out to be delivering presentations, so his public speaking skills worked in his favor. Sharma believes that his ability to explain his thought process while coding gave interviewers an insight into his problem-solving ability, making it easier for them to judge his skills as an engineer.

For Britto, his unique proposition was his experience collaborating with Apple employees on an open-source project. Though he admits that it was a difficult road to take, he believed that it contributed to his success at Apple. Because “very few people go through with contributing to the projects,” those who do “get noticed by Apple’s team from the inside.”

Britto concluded, “If you do, that’s your ticket.”

I started my company a decade ago with my husband, a good friend, and my sister–who eventually quit. We’d grown from our scrappy team of four to an equally scrappy team of 14, but somewhere along the way my sister, whom I’d put in charge of content management, stopped feeling like it was a fit for her career.

I was hurt. It’s always hard when a key leader leaves–and it’s even harder when they’re someone you’re close to. Luckily, my sister and I remain best friends, but her departure was still a huge shock to our team.

When important people quit, it can really disrupt your team’s day-to-day operations. But I’ve discovered some things about what it takes to keep things running smoothly. Here are a few of the crucial steps you should take as soon as one of your key employees lets you know they’ve decided to move on:

Step 1: Schedule An Exit Interview

Exit interviews shouldn’t just happen in large organizations. If a key leader decides to leave on their own terms, make sure you sit down and have a face-to-face meeting. Get a date on the calendar before their last day. Then ask these questions:

• Why are you choosing to leave?
• How could we have improved this situation before you decided to leave?
• Did we provide you with the tools and training you needed to complete your job to the best of your abilities?
• How would you describe the company culture in your department and company-wide?
• If you were CEO, what three things would you change about the company?

Related:Four Signs Someone Is About To Quit (And What To Do To Get Them To Stay)

Make sure you record this conversation, take notes, and file their answers–this way you can make adjustments based on their responses. At the very least, you’ll gain insight (good and bad) into the true inner workings of your company from somebody who can call it like they see it.

Step 2: Draft A Clear Plan For The Company

Before you break the news, make sure you clearly define who will be taking over what roles. Announcing that a key player is leaving without any clear direction can hurt morale and productivity and can even kick off a chain reaction of anxiety. It’s your job to make it known that the company isn’t going to crumble because of this leader’s departure. It might seem obvious to you that every employee is replaceable, but your other employees–especially if they’re new to the workforce–may not think that way.

Step 3: Break The News To The Entire Team At The Same Time

Don’t feed the gossip grapevine while you get your transition plan in order. As soon as you have a basic strategy in place for the weeks ahead, you’ve got to share the news. Failing to make a proper announcement to the entire team, or disclosing this information to people outside your company before informing your team, is an invitation for chaos. Plan what you’re going to say and how you’ll say it so that the news is easier to hear and deliver.

Step 4: Bring In Support

Regardless of whether your company is full of recent grads, veteran employees, or a mix of the two, you can expect that some of your team members will find the prospect of losing a leader overwhelming.

Related:Why My Company Started Helping Our Best Employees Quit 

So make sure they know you’ll support them. If the departure means their roles will be changing, offer further training and development programs to help cultivate their skills and improve their productivity. Some of the best training happens on the job, but now isn’t a great time for that–especially not if your team just lost its leader.

Designate time immediately to work with your team one on one to make sure they’re prepared for their new roles. In the short-term, this is going to take time away from your other responsibilities, but it’ll help save you time, money, and possibly more employee attrition in the long run.

Step 5: Keep Things Positive

The world isn’t over just because you lost a key player–and sometimes your employees just need to hear you say it. It takes some planning and forethought to prepare your team for the imminent departure of a key player. But when you do, it’s easier for everyone to recalibrate quickly and move forward together.

Spin this negative into a positive–prepare your team for the change, stop office gossip before it can even start, and train the successors to take on their new roles as best they can.

Maren Hogan leads Red Branch Media, an agency offering marketing strategy and content development. She is also a member of the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC).

As expected and widely predicted, State Street Global Advisors’ “Fearless Girl” has been a Grand Prix juggernaut at the Cannes Lions Festival of Creativity. By the final tally, it had a hat-trick-plus-one, with top prize in the Glass, PR, Non-Traditional Outdoor, and Titanium categories.

Given we’ve spent plenty of words of praise on “Fearless Girl” since it first landed on Wall Street–and rightly so!–for the purposes of this week’s Grand Prix Edition, I’m going to take her out of the running. The other slight variation on the weekly Top 5 format is the Why We Care section. There is none this week because it’s the Grand Prix Edition, featuring case studies, so the reasoning should be pretty clear there. Now, without further delay, here are my favorites among the best of the best awarded last week in the south of France. Onward!

Burger King “Google Home of The Whopper”

What: Direct Grand Prix

Who: Burger King, DAVID Miami

Whirlpool “Care Count initiative”

What: Creative Data Grand Prix

Who: Whirlpool, DigitasLBi

Santander Bank “Beyond Money”

What: Entertainment Grand Prix

Who: Santander Bank, MRM//McCann

Adidas “Original Is Never Finished”

What: Entertainment for Music

Who: Adidas, Johannes Leonardo

Channel 4 “We Are The Superhumans”

What: Film Grand Prix

Who: Channel 4, 4 Creative

What do college robotics students and grade-school kids have in common? Both can now learn programing with Anki’s $180 Cozmo robot. After releasing a programming kit in the popular Python language last year, Anki is now looking to go after kids as young as six years old with a point-and-click programming interface called Cozmo Code Lab.

The move comes about three years after toymaker Sphero launched a kid-programmable version of its $130 robotic ball called Sphero SPRK+. Cozmo is pricier but also more sophisticated. It uses a front camera to recognize individuals—and even their moods—based on facial expressions. Cozmo can show its own expressions on its 128 x 64 “facial display” screen. Each Cozmo even develops unique personality quirks. “It’s not random, but it’s based on all his previous experiences,” says Hanns Tappeiner, Anki’s cofounder and president.

Rather than come out with a separate educational product, Anki added Code Lab to the standard Cozmo smartphone and tablet control app. “We wanted to gamify it as much as possible so that it doesn’t feel intimidating,” says Tappeiner. “So we literally just put it right in between all the other games and activities in there.”

Code Lab’s interface is based on Scratch Blocks, a visual programing language developed by the MIT Media Lab that represents lines of code with drag-and-drop blocks. In a few seconds, Tappeiner programmed Cozmo to giggle and wave its little arms whenever it saw someone smile. “That’s very, very hardcore code underneath, but in here it’s just a block you drag onto the screen,” he says.

Code Lab utilizes the latest version of Scratch Blocks, which includes a new introductory mode of arranging blocks horizontally across the screen. Anki provides 32 simple challenges, like the one that Tappeiner showed me, to get kids started. “When you’re a complete beginner, it’s hard to be creative, because you’re still trying to figure out how things work,” says Tappeiner. Kids then progress to a mode of arranging blocks from the top to bottom of the screen, like real lines of code.

A later version of the app will include Scratch Block’s ability to reveal what the programs look like in real languages, such as Python and Java, to help students progress from point and click to typing out full code. College students are already programming Cozmo in introductory robotics classes at schools like Georgia Tech and Tappeiner’s alma mater, Carnegie Mellon University.

Though known for Cozmo and its Overdrive robotic toy cars, Anki has always said it plans to go much further. Sphero’s recent spin-off of a home robot company called Misty Robotics may foretell a future path for Anki; and with over $150 million in venture funding, the company has the resources to go much bigger. Aiming to provide the first bot that future engineers learn to program could be a good start toward building a robot empire.

Correction: Because of incorrect information provided by a press rep, an earlier version of this article misidentified Hans Tappeiner.

Whether you are well into your career or have a gap in your employment, it can be tough to decide what to include on a resume. This is especially true when you reach a point where you question whether your work experience happened too long ago to include on your resume.

Most people are looking for a straightforward answer or rule that tells them exactly how many years is too far back to include on their resume. However, career experts and coaches say there’s no hard-and-fast, right answer.

We spoke with Michelle Aikman, NCRW, cofounder and director of Adventure Learning of Cerno, to discuss just how far back your resume should go.

The Rule Of Thumb

The standard rule people will often hear is that any experience past 10 years is not relevant and should be kept off a resume. But Aikman points out that there is no hard and fast rule that applies to everyone, because some people don’t have work experience that leads them to what they want to do next.

“My rule of thumb is to consider how important the experience is to convey your ability to do the job, and whether it is absolutely critical that you communicate your qualifications or past experiences with a timeline attached to it,” says Aikman.

Related:The One Question Your Resume Needs To Answer (But Probably Doesn’t) 

If the experience still applies, regardless of when it occurred, Aikman says you should still put it on your resume.

“As long as it gives the employer enough information to understand it, it opens the door for you to talk about that experience,” she explains. “It might not be recent, but is still relevant.”

It’s All About Relevancy

When it comes to placing old work experience on your resume, Aikman says to focus on relevancy. If you did something in high school or college that is more relevant to what you are trying to do than other recent experiences, then Aikman says you absolutely should include it because it adds to your qualifications.

For those with a large gap in their employment, filling out a job application or going to an interview might be nerve-wrecking if you’re worried an employer will notice how far back your resume goes. But if you accomplished things in your personal life that you are proud of, you can find ways to showcase those accomplishments on your resume as relevant experience.

For example, if there is a gap in your employment because you had to care for a family member or loved one, you can explain what you learned or accomplished through that experience in a way that showcases the relevant work to the job you are now applying to. Maybe that experience taught you how to manage another person’s life–so you can showcase why you’d be a great assistant or general manager.

“It just comes down to pulling out the relevant words to describe what you did,” says Aikman. “It may mean you need to be skilled in how you present the information, because you may not be able to use the language you used before. Think about how you can communicate this experience using language that will resonate with the employer.”

Translating Old Experiences

Moreover, not only is providing relevant experience important, but it’s also important to translate the experience for your future employer. Aikman says you must come to terms with the challenges you are facing while unemployed, but showing the employer why you are motivated and want to work for them.

Related:The Most Common Resume Mistakes And How To Fix Them

“The cover letter is a really good place to explain this,” advises Aikman. “It’s important that you provide details on why you are trying to transition right now, because employers tend to get nervous about why you are unemployed or haven’t been hired yet.”

Aikman explains this is a significant issue for many people with a large employment gap, and that many career services centers or professionals are not able to help because they don’t know how to.

Go Beyond The Resume

Unfortunately, a stigma still exists around being unemployed. When you are looking for a new job, the standard process of filling out an online application or dropping off a resume isn’t always enough. Aikman advises that those in this situation should be more proactive in reaching out to employers by attending networking events and building relationships with other professionals.

When it comes down to it, Aikman says you just have to communicate to the employer that the experience you have, regardless of when it occurred, does make you qualified for the position.

“You have to believe in the resume for it to work. I think anything can go on a resume, it’s just how you communicate it using the right language,” she says.

This article originally appeared on Glassdoor and is reprinted with permission.

This is embarrassing to admit, but I probably use Amazon’s Echo speaker to brew coffee more than anything else. Being an insufferable Aeropress snob involves precise timing while juggling a few different tasks–measuring, preheating, grinding, pouring, plunging–so asking Amazon’s Alexa assistant to set a timer tends to be easier than pulling up an app on a smartphone.

Amazon’s $230 Echo Show, which launches on Wednesday, is a fine assistant barista, with a touchscreen that can show the seconds running down. But what really sets the Echo Show apart from its screen-less siblings is how it’s coaxed me into using it as more than just a glorified kitchen timer. Whereas the Echo speaker can be easy to overlook, the Echo Show’s persistent display and front-facing video camera have a way of beckoning for your voice commands, ensuring that Alexa doesn’t get neglected.

A More Assertive Echo

While the original Echo vaguely resembles a skinny airport trash receptacle, the Echo Show looks more like a piece of the Aggro Crag, all hard edges surrounding its speaker grille and 7-inch, 1024-by-600 resolution display.

Audio quality is similar to the original Echo–loud enough to fill a large room, but lacking the oomph of a premium sound system and subwoofer–with one major distinction: The Echo Show’s speakers are stereo instead of omnidirectional, so audio becomes a bit muffled when you move behind the device. I’ve seen people put their Echo speakers on kitchen islands and bar tops, but the Echo Show might require more deliberation about how to position the screen.

The display springs into action whenever the Echo Show’s camera detects motion. The time and weather appear in the top-left corner, while the bottom half of the screen cycles through Alexa tips, upcoming calendar events, and news headlines. The subtext here is clear: Go on, start talking. Listen to some music. Watch some Amazon Prime video. Ask a question. Call a friend. Get some use out of this device for which you just paid $230.

The Echo Show has some other new ways of ingratiating itself. You can turn its home screen into a digital photo frame, either by uploading a single image through Amazon’s Alexa smartphone app or by linking to an album in Amazon Prime Photos. The device can also serve as a bedside alarm clock, with just the time displayed over a black background. Amazon’s interface even includes some cute little touches, such as lyrics for songs on Amazon Prime, and the virtual Newton’s Cradle that pops up during the final seconds of a timer.

Fundamentally, though, the Echo Show is still a voice-driven device, with no shortcuts on the home screen to any Alexa functions. At most, the touchscreen provides secondary controls for certain things such as checking off to-do list items, scrolling through Amazon product search results, and adjusting music playback.

The dependence on voice can be frustrating at times. I wouldn’t mind, for instance, a way to launch recent music playlists or Amazon Prime video episodes with just the touchscreen, or a control panel for smart home devices. But these limitations do send a message: The Echo Show is an entirely different device than your phone or tablet.

Under Alexa’s Eye

The Echo Show’s front-facing camera is more than just a motion sensor. It also supports video chat with other Echo Show devices, and with anyone who’s installed the Alexa app on iOS or Android. I tested this briefly with an Amazon representative, which at least proved that the Echo Show can handle video calls smoothly and without major glitches.

But while Amazon positions video calling as one of the Echo Show’s key features, I’m skeptical about how useful this will be in practice. The Echo Show must be plugged in for power, requiring you to stay in one spot throughout the conversation. My guess in that in most cases, a phone or tablet is going to be more practical. (Desktop PCs make you stay in place, too, but at least you can assume there will be a chair there.)

One notable exception is a feature called “drop in,” which lets trusted contacts start a video call without any confirmation from the recipient. Audio starts playing immediately during a drop in, and the recipient has about 10 seconds to end the call before video fades into view. In theory this could turn the Echo Show into a frictionless in-home intercom, or a way to keep tabs on elderly relatives, but my brief demo session didn’t give me a sense of how well this works.

On some level, I suspect video chat is more about marketing than practicality. It’s not available on other Echo devices, so it may help justify the Echo Show’s $50 premium in people’s minds even if they seldom use the feature.

The trade-off with that camera is that an all-seeing Alexa device might make some people skittish. But Amazon does offer a long list of assurances that people won’t be snooped on: The Echo Show’s camera doesn’t transmit video for anything other than video chat, and the device only sends audio to Amazon’s servers when it detects the “Alexa” wake word, which is processed on the device itself. Amazon’s “drop in” feature also requires opt-in consent from each contact, and users can disable the feature entirely or limit it to in-home intercom use. For moments of heightened paranoia, you can just tap a button atop the Echo Show to shut off its camera and microphone.

Alexa’s To-Do List

It’s worth noting that when Amazon launched the original Echo in late 2014, it could only answer basic questions, play audio from a few sources, and read the news. Smart home controls, third-party Alexa skills, and more sources of music and news came later through software updates. The Echo Show feels like it’s in a similar stage of infancy, even though it includes all the Alexa functions that Amazon has built up over the past few years.

We’ve yet to see, for instance, how third-party Alexa skills will take advantage of the screen. At the moment, they merely display a transcript of Alexa’s audio responses, but on the Alexa companion app, they’re also allowed to show an image and complementary text. The Echo Show could allow for similar visuals, and perhaps pave the way for more interactive features such as hyperlinks and scrollable lists. Amazon has already announced that smart home cameras such as the Nest Cam will be able to display a video feed on the Echo Show, so it seems likely that the company will open up the screen to more uses in the future.

It also wouldn’t be surprising if Amazon found more uses for the Echo Show’s front-facing camera, beyond just video chat and activating the display. Perhaps the motion sensor could trigger smart home devices through a service like IFTTT, or allow for the same selfie-cam capabilities as the mirror-like Echo Look.

I would never suggest buying a tech product in anticipation of unreleased or unannounced features. But even in its current state, the Echo Show succeeds at giving Alexa a stronger presence in the home. It’s worth buying over the $180 screen-less standard Echo if you can spare the extra $50 and don’t mind the lack of omnidirectional audio. And for Amazon, it’s a solid foundation for taking its virtual assistant to greater heights.

Welcome back to another week in music. Forgive the slight delay in our regularly scheduled Friday post, but this past week had some late releases that were crucial for the playlist. So here we are on Monday morning ready to get into this new playlist. Speaking of which, last week music writer Liz Pelly explored the business model of “curated” playlists that should be required reading.

Track 1. SZA – “Drew Barrymore”

SZA is super calculated, so let’s break down the Drew Barrymore music video to appreciate it a bit more. The video dropped on June 20, the day before the solstice/first day of summer, coinciding with the main chorus that asks the listener, “warm enough for ya?” However, the music video, directed by the Dave Meyers, was filmed during winter in New York City. During her snowy stroll, SZA starts defying gravity–a subtle homage to Pharcyde. Then, the cherry on top of it all, Drew Barrymore herself makes a cameo. It’s the little details that make this video worthy of a view.

Track 2. Vince Staples – “Party People”

Vince Staples dropped his new album Big Fish Theory on Friday. This is technically his second studio album, but Staples has released a couple of EPs and has been active since 2010. The stand out track on Big Fish Theory is easily “Party People,” which encapsulates the record’s message in these lyrics…

Move your body if you came here to party
If not then pardon me
How I’m supposed to have a good time
When death and destruction’s all I see?

The beats and production for the album has an EDM vibe, and the lyrics are very dark and realistic–not a far cry from the mood we’re living through these dark days. It’s as if Vince is saying once you stop and realize what is actually happening, the party is over.

Track 3. Haim – “Want You Back”

Haim’s newest music video falls in line with director Jake Schreier’s one-take artistry. Haim’s forthcoming album Something To Tell You is due July 7.

Track 4. DJ Khaled, Travis Scott, Rick Ross, and Big Sean – “On Everything”

In the early hours of Thursday morning, DJ Khaled’s collaboration album Grateful finally dropped–followed a day later by the music video for “On Everything,” featuring Rick Ross, Travis Scott, and Big Sean.

Track 5. dvsn – “Don’t Choose”

dvsn, the duo from Drake’s OVO Sound label, dropped a surprise single for us. “Don’t Choose” features a possible sample that’s practically Google-proof! The unknown sample kicks in during the chorus and it goes . . .

I love you and I want to be loved
But I just don’t know how to tell you, oh no no

Five points to the music-savvy person who can track down this sample.

Track 6. Mobb Deep – “Shook Ones, Part II”

Rapper Prodigy passed away earlier this week at the too-young age of 42. For anyone who grew up in Queens, New York, these songs were vital to your hip-hop foundation. The rapper is immortalized as part of the duo Mobb Deep and is credited with coining the phrase:

Queens Get The Money.

RIP.

Bonus Track. Kevin Garrett – Pulling Me Under

The singer-songwriter Kevin Garrett cannot be recommended enough. Garrett’s highest praise to date is being the writer behind Beyoncé’s Lemonade intro track “Pray You Catch Me.” For the past couple of weeks, Garrett has been releasing videos exclusively on Jay Z’s platform Tidal. This week’s release, “Pulling Me Under,” is from Kevin Garrett’s second EP False Hope. His First EP Mellow Drama is worth your time as well. Next week, we’ve been promised a new album release from Jay Z. With moves like these, let’s expect to see more value from Tidal.

Hidden Gems. Majid Jordan – “Gave Your Love Away,” and  Drake – “Signs” (from the Louis Vuitton SS 2018 Fashion Show)

Let’s bring it back to the fall of 2015, when the fashion show turned music video was born from Kanye West’s Adidas debut of Yeezy Season 1 in New York City. That same concept with a different approach just happened again–this time during the 2017 Paris Fashion Week. Louis Vuitton tapped Drake to curate the soundtrack for their spring-summer 2018 showcase. The runway show starts off with Drake’s OVO labelmates Majid Jordan with their new track “Gave Your Love Away.” At the four-minute mark, the new song from Drake titled “Signs” is heard. The track was cut and extended to fit the remaining time of the 11-minute presentation. The single version of “Signs” was released late Friday evening, which leads us to believe the single version of Majid Jordan’s new song should be out any day now.

As always…

…Take it with you. – Allman Brothers Band

In terms of sheer cash contributions, the Trump presidency is turning out to be a boon for philanthropy. The average amount that Democrats intend to donate this year went up 50% during the president’s first 100 days in office. Among Republicans, it jumped 28%.

That’s not to say that all that cash is working together, or in the most effective way to improve the world. In fact, the opposite is happening: There’s an obviously partisan battle happening within the charity world, with the left trying to protect previously established values as the right expands what’s most important to its own constituents.

According to a study by the National Research Group and PMX Agency, a marketing group, Democrats are most interested in advocating for things like women’s rights, the environment, and civil liberties. All of those things have been threatened by Trump’s conservative, regulation-light platform, which is anti-abortion, denies climate change, and supports Muslim bans.

As the chart below shows, part of that is because of who’s getting fired up. More young donors are now giving—38% of those under 35 years old either gave or plan to give for the first time because of the election. On the whole, young folks also traditionally give less because they have less money, which means a huge spike in intention doesn’t translate into gigantic windfalls.

The report tracks which administration moves, in particular, have spurred each camp into charitable action. Among Democrats, that includes Trump enacting a rule to block funding for nongovernmental organizations that provide abortions, the controversial appointments of Scott Pruitt to the EPA and Betsy Devos as Secretary of Education, and actions to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and keep travelers from Muslim countries outside our borders.

Among Republicans, national security actions continue to provide motivation, including the U.S. military strike in Syria, that same Muslim ban, and actions to build the Mexico border wall that lead to more giving.

You can read the full report here.