In 2016, Subway stopped serving chicken sandwiches made from chickens raised with antibiotics. McDonald’s did the same with chicken sandwiches, salads, and Chicken McNuggets in the U.S. (It now plans to expand its ban on chicken raised with antibiotics worldwide.) Perdue Farms, a major poultry producer, also phased out antibiotics that year. Others, like Chipotle, have had a ban in place longer.

Still, around 70% of medically important antibiotics–those that are needed to treat people–are used in farm animals, not humans, and their overuse in agriculture is one of the major reasons that antibiotics are becoming less effective, making it more likely that people can die from routine infections. By 2050, if business continues as usual, an estimated 10 million people could die every year from a drug-resistant disease. A new report explains how farms could fix their end of the problem.

“Antibiotic resistance is kind of a numbers game,” says David Wallinga, a physician and senior health officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the organizations that assisted an outside panel of experts that prepared the report. “The more you use the antibiotics, the more you’re basically helping to spur the development and spread of resistance to those antibiotics.”

When drugs used to treat human infections are also regularly used en masse on farms, each animal’s gut “basically acts as a petri dish” for bacteria that can evolve so the drugs stop working, Wallinga says. Bacteria can then spread from animal poop to farm workers, soil fertilized with the manure, or runoff that contaminates waterways. When researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health drove behind poultry trucks in cars with the windows open, they later found antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air inside the cars and resting on soda in the car’s cup holders.

The report, written by a panel of health experts and veterinarians, recommends that routine use of antibiotics should be phased out in animals. Some diseases can be prevented by vaccines rather than a constant dose of antibiotics. When animals are sick or there’s a disease outbreak, the report suggests that farms should use antibiotics that aren’t classified as important in human medicine.

“It’s not rocket science,” Wallinga says. “It’s things like: Let’s keep the animals healthier in the first place so they don’t get sick, not by using antibiotics in their feed, but by doing things like giving them better nutrition.”

The report also suggests that the government should have a better system for collecting detailed data on antibiotic use in agriculture, and that it should improve its system for testing samples of meat for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Genetic sequencing of all bacteria, for example, could help more quickly identify resistant genes.

The industry could improve quickly. The Netherlands used antibiotics in farming as intensively as the U.S. in 2008, but cut that use 64% between 2009 and 2016 while producers still maintained or increased production levels and profits.

While some of the changes would be best accomplished through policy, food companies and their consumers can also take initiative themselves. Several large restaurant chains have tackled antibiotic use in chicken, for example, but haven’t yet made commitments to phase out their use in beef or pork.

Facebook’s Ad Manager site tells advertisers that it has a potential reach of 41 million 18- to 24 year-olds in the United States, even though U.S. census data shows that, last year, there were only 31 million people living in the country between these ages. That’s according to a new report by Pivotal Research Group senior analyst Brian Wieser, who says the social network also claims a reach of 60 million 25- to 34 year-olds, even though U.S. census data has that number at 45 million.

The report had many scratching their heads after it was picked up by Reuters and made the rounds on social media. Is Facebook promising it can reach more people than actually exist? In response, the company sent me the following statement:

“Reach estimations are based on a number of factors, including Facebook user behaviors, user demographics, location data from devices, and other factors. They are designed to estimate how many people in a given area are eligible to see an ad a business might run. They are not designed to match population or census estimates. We are always working to improve our estimates.”

Media agency sources on background told me that advertisers don’t typically use census data to inform their ad buying decisions between media, so comparing Facebook reach with the census isn’t especially instructive. Such data can be helpful from a research perspective, and used to understand how to target certain audiences, but it’s seen more as a signpost, not something brands use to match ad targets to.

PHD USA’s chief investment officer Craig Atkinson says his clients are much more interested in using Facebook for its sophisticated audience targeting capabilities—they’re seeking behavioral audiences, not simply age/gender/demography. “Our clients are looking for allergy suffers, vacation intenders, movie enthusiasts and people with a car about to come off lease,” says Atkinson. “Once that level of precision is available, exactly how many 18-34 year old females that exist in the U.S. is a much less interesting number. That’s where the true power of Facebook lies.”

Still, while Pivotal’s report probably won’t scare off many advertisers, for those who are questioning what their digital investment is getting them, this kind of thing can feed into existing skepticism. Ultimately what media agency sources say is that it’s another reason to push for more significant third-party certification of Facebook and Google’s advertising metrics, like how Nielsen measures TV audiences.

This is not the first time Facebook has faced criticism over its audience data. Last year, the company apologized for overstating how long users spent watching videos on Facebook. As part of that apology, Facebook said it would form a “measurement council” of ad agency executives and brand marketers to develop metrics suited to the needs of advertisers.

In his note to investors Wieser wrote: “While Facebook’s measurement issues won’t necessarily deter advertisers from spending money with Facebook, they will help traditional TV sellers justify existing budget shares and could restrain Facebook’s growth in video ad sales on the margins.”

This story has been updated with additional input from PHD USA

To the homeless, good, clean socks are crucial to being able to walk long distances without blisters and avoid athlete’s foot, frostbite, or worse. But because most of us treat socks as an afterthought or perhaps as a fashion statement, homeless shelters tend to find themselves low on good socks.

Some socially minded sock companies are trying to address the problem. In the U.S., sock brand Bombas launched in 2013, allowing customers to donate one pair of socks for every pair they buy. (I wrote about the brand’s mission earlier this year.) And this week, a brand called Sexy Socks launched a crowdfunding campaign to do the same in the U.K.

The brand began in South Africa in 2014 with a sock made from 83% bamboo. It sold 30,000 pairs, which meant the same number was donated to schoolchildren in need.  Now Sexy Socks is launching a crowdfunding campaign on a platform called UpEffect to fund a global expansion, starting with London. The company will invite children to take part in “sock drops” to donate socks to people in need and to try to get a younger generation aware of and excited about social entrepreneurship.

“It’s been a sad day,” was one of the first things Humeyra Celik said to me yesterday when I called her about President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. And how could it not be? The president put the fate of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers in limbo, giving Congress six months to pass immigration legislation.

Now Celik and other Dreamers are focusing on what’s next and scrambling to figure out how to fight for their rights in the days to come.

The daughter of undocumented immigrants, Celik received legal protection thanks to DACA, which was signed by the Obama administration in 2012.  It provided her with a temporary permit that allowed her to study and work in the U.S. without the fear of deportation.

She moved from Turkey to the suburbs of Philadelphia when she was seven years old with her mom–her dad had already been living in the U.S. For years she lived as an undocumented immigrant, working hard in school to make it to the top of her class. After scoring high grades in high school, she went to a New York community college and later transferred to City College of New York, where she had to pay full price as an international student due to her legal status. After graduating, she worked numerous internships that led to her current gig as a production coordinator at MTV.

Celik was legally able to find work and go to school thanks to DACA. Now she’s fearful—the life and community she’s built in this country since childhood could be all for naught.

“It’s sad because I did all this hard work,” Celik says, describing her experience. After Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the decision on Monday to rescind DACA, fear took over her body. “It’s been very emotional,” says Celik.

Her legal status is covered until October 2018–after that it’s unclear. “I’m not really sure what’s going to happen,” Celik says, adding “it’s really scary.” Right now she is pinning her hopes on widespread public protests putting pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation that keeps Dreamers in the country.

A Community In Limbo

Of the nearly 800,000 DACA recipients, 95% of them are currently working or in school. They all follow the same process, applying to the program every two years, to maintain their status and remain protected from deportation. “It’s already frustrating enough to deal with this every two years,” says Celik, “to prove that I deserve to be here.” This includes filing expensive paperwork with lawyers and running extensive background checks. Still, it’s better than the alternative of losing her legal status. “I have a brother who’s in the same situation,” Celik adds.

Isaac Montiel, another Dreamer and current student at the New York City College of Technology, is in the same boat. He moved to the U.S. from Mexico with his mother when he was 13. In 2012 he became a DACA recipient, which helped him get into college. Though he already had an associate’s degree in computer engineering, he is now working to get his bachelor’s in computer systems technology. While keeping up with his studies, he leads extracurricular programs to provide aid and assistance to other immigrant students in similar situations.

As a community leader, he had a feeling this day was coming and knew he’d have to be an example to others. “I was kind of prepared for this,” he says. “It hit me but I had to be strong for the students that I lead in my community.” This week Montiel is in Washington, D.C. to protest Trump’s decision. He took to the streets yesterday and is participating in a hunger strike with dozens of other dreamers from around the country.

Both Celik and Montiel have had a sour feeling in their stomach since Trump was elected president. Trump mentioned DACA earlier on in his campaign but then seemed to back off–the undocumented community was unsure of whether or not the president would act. As time went on, their fears continued to mount. Soon, the writing was on the wall. It became clear, says Celik, “that this thing we had could be taken away at any second.” This week it was.

What’s Next?

Montiel’s big hopes hinge on Congress having a heart and taking action. Trump’s decision to rescind DACA put the issue on the front page. Now Dreamers and their allies are trying to get lawmakers’ attention. Legislation, he says, is the only option–new laws must be passed that “will not compromise our families [or] any of the benefits that we have.”

For Celik, she just hopes U.S. citizens begin to understand the gravity of the situation. “It’d be really helpful if people were more educated about this,” she says. “It’s sad that a lot of people–even my own friends–don’t know what [DACA] is.” It’s also important for Americans to understand the magnitude of the situation and the emotional toll it’s taking on the community of Dreamers; “be a little more conscious about how they may be feeling,” she says, “just listen to them.” And she hopes to mobilize enough of their allies to hit the streets and stage protests. “At the end of the day there’s nothing else we can do,” she says.

For now, the future remains unclear. “Everyone now is trying to figure out what their next move is going to be,” says Celik. “Maybe trying to stay here and figure something out… or do we leave? Can we leave? For myself, I’m not Turkish anymore. I grew up here since I was 7…I’m Turkish-American.”

She goes on, “We deserve to here. I work as hard as any other American–I don’t know why I have to prove I have to be here.”

Revered tech law and policy blog TechDirt scored a big legal win today. It’s been fighting a $15 million defamation suit against Shiva Ayyadurai, a man who claims to have invented email–a claim that TechDirt systematically debunked. Ayyadurai is being represented by Charles Harder, the very lawyer who helped Hulk Hogan kill Gawker.

It seems Harder and Ayyadurai aren’t having the same impact–a judge has dismissed the case.

BREAKING: District judge dismisses defamation case against @techdirt. This is a huge victory for free speech online & journalism.

— EFF (@EFF) September 6, 2017

This comes a few weeks after another judge rejected Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against the New York Times, also for defamation. So, even though Gawker‘s demise may have begun a chilling effect for lawsuits against media companies, not all of these cases are ending the same way.

Some 123,000 ethnic Rohingya are believed to have fled Myanmar (formerly Burma) since August 25 as their villages have been razed and their people killed in unrest between the mostly Muslim group and the country’s majority Buddhist population. After being widely criticized for her nonresponse, the country’s de facto leader–Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi–has finally commented on the situation.

Per the BBC, her defense may sound familiar to Americans: In a phone call with Turkey’s President Erdogan, Suu Kyi said her government had “already started defending all the people in Rakhine [where the unrest is taking place] in the best way possible,” but added that fake news was making the situation worse, citing “a huge iceberg of misinformation calculated to create a lot of problems between different communities and with the aim of promoting the interest of the terrorists.”

This defense has basis in reality. The BBC reports that many photos of the crisis circulating online are, in fact, mislabeled. For instance, Turkey’s deputy prime minister Mehmet Simsek is getting dragged online for tweeting about the Rohingya crisis accompanied by photos from a Nepali flood and the Rwandan genocide–confusing an already complicated situation.

But the government is not exactly helping to stem the misinformation. “The fake news is generated because the government is not allowing media access to the troubled areas,” the BBC reports, quoting Tin Htar Swe of its Burmese Service.

There are few creativity killers more potent than an overly complex tool. For musicians both casual and pro, such complexity—sophisticated software, plug-ins, cables, audio interfaces, and microphones—can offer a lot of creative control, but just as easily introduce enough friction to wreck a moment of inspiration.

Like so many of life’s annoyances, there’s a tech company trying to fix this one: Spire Studio is a new mobile recording gadget from iZotope, a Massachusetts-based company that has made music recording software and hardware for the last 16 years. Sporting a high-quality built-in microphone, the compact, cylindrical device connects to your iPhone via Wi-Fi to enable simplified, portable multi-track recording into the Spire Studio iOS app. The result is a dead-simple approach to capturing songs and ideas with the help of a gizmo you can throw in your bag.

“When we look at the future of what music recording looks like, it’s going to be wireless,” says iZotope product marketing manager Colin Thurmond. “The world is going wireless and things need to be really simple and accessible and fun.”

For more serious songwriters and musicians, the Spire Studio makes it ultra-easy to record a decent-sounding, multi-layered demo of a song on the go. For beginners, it’s an easy introduction to multi-track recording and the creative possibilities that are unlocked when one can layer different instruments on top of one another.

For both types of musicians, the Spire Studio meets them halfway between a proper laptop recording setup (and all components and cables that requires) and the basic one-track demo recording many musicians do on an iPhone—often through the native Voice Memos app or something like Apple’s Music Memos.

Related: Can This Mobile Recording Studio Ease Police-Community Tensions With Music?

There are multi-track mobile audio apps more sophisticated than Spire Studio’s—the iOS version of GarageBand, for instance—but iZotope’s app seems content to err on the side of simplicity. Rather than trying to cram a full-fledged audio workstation like GarageBand or Pro Tools onto a pocket-size interface, the Spire Studio app offers a stripped-down, visually intuitive interface with a few basic effects and filters that can be applied to each layer of a song. It even eschews a more traditional interface for mixing the levels of the different instruments, opting for a simplified graphical X-Y axis that anyone can understand, regardless of their level of audio-editing experience.

Crucially, the tracks can be exported to other common audio programs like Pro Tools or Logic, where they can be edited and rearranged with all the granularity and sophistication those desktop programs allow. The Spire Studio is more about capturing ideas quickly and easily from any location (provided it’s not too noisy).

In addition to its small, forward-facing mic, the device also has two inputs for proper microphones (or other instruments, like guitars or synthesizers) in case one prefers to use fancier microphones or wants a multi-mic setup to record more complicated instruments like drums (which the Spire Studio handles surprisingly well for such a small, unassuming-looking gizmo).

The Spire Studio was also designed to be collaborative. In addition to exporting multi-track files to other audio programs (or mixing it all down to a SoundCloud-ready MP3, if you feel so confident), you can also share the Spire project files with other people and allow them to add their own parts or make edits to your recording. This enables people to collaborate on music regardless of geography and, refreshingly, they’re free to do it using the software and recording tech of their choice.

This is a versatile device that can be used to produce something close to a finished product, but it’s equally useful as a sonic sketchbook that serves as a creative starting point.

Facebook testified before congressional investigators this week that it was able to track ads it sold ahead of the 2016 US election to a troll farm likely funded by Russia, the Washington Post reports. The roughly 3,000 ads sold on the platform–which ran as early as 2015 from 470 fake accounts–total around $100,000 and featured polarizing content about presidential nominees and hot-button issues. The majority of the ads did not reference either of the two presidential candidates, the company said, and one quarter of the ads were geographically targeted.

This raises a few questions, many of which have been asked for quite a while. Most pressing is how Russian entities were able to precisely target the ads: Those spreading ads would need certain data to correctly send them to susceptible voters in swing states.

The ability to send these ads out at scale suggests to some—including Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the co-chair of the Senate committee investigating Russia’s influence on the election and possible links with the Trump campaign—that there may have been coordination with others in the U.S. But this is something that the company is unable to determine, according to “an official familiar with Facebook’s internal investigation” who spoke with the Post.

“I’d like to get a more comprehensive look than perhaps what we got today,” Warner told Axios today. “My hope is that we would even at some point get Facebook, Twitter and some of the other social media firms in for a public hearing.”

Early on, CEO Mark Zuckerberg played down the influence that “fake news” had had on the election’s outcome; an April report described “information operations” that had a minimal reach, and a company spokesperson previously said the company had no evidence that Russia-linked entities purchased ads. But Facebook has also refused to let researchers study raw data surrounding elections ads and their impact, citing privacy policies.

In addition to Facebook’s acknowledgement about the US election, the company says it has tracked similar efforts in recent months, noting in a blog post today that “we have taken action against fake accounts in France, Germany, and other countries, and we recently stated that we will no longer allow Pages that repeatedly share false news to advertise on Facebook.” That decision is one of a number Facebook has made as it attempts to limit fake accounts, misinformation, and other types of complicated content that it and other companies struggle to moderate.

This new bit of transparency is part of that effort, and sheds more valuable light on the company’s role in elections. But it also highlights just how little we know about how the Facebook ad ecosystem works—a topic that’s of particular interest to advertisers too.

Related: Mark Zuckerberg On Fake News, Free Speech, And What Drives Facebook 

As the 2017 NFL season kicks off, the Atlanta Falcons have found a new home in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium. The $1.5 billion arena is an engineering and technology feat, designed completely with the fan experience in mind. The stadium also opens with the league’s lowest-priced food and drinks.

With the much anticipated release of “It,” here are some examples of King stories that had no business on the big screen.

Jobs’s philanthropic arm the Emerson Collective has purchased its first- ever political ads, reports Recode. The ad uses footage of Ronald Reagan’s farewell address in which he praises America’s diversity. The ad is just the latest salvo by Jobs’s in her defense of DACA. In a statement earlier this week she said:

“Is there anything more heartless and less intelligent that our government could do? It is heartless, because the elimination of this protection will put an end to the upward trajectory, the beautifully American trajectory, of these young people, and destroy their dreams, and force them to live in insecurity and dread. It is unintelligent, because these youngsters are on the way to becoming exemplary citizens and productive members of our economy”

Shining City from Emerson Collective on Vimeo.

My husband Ken likes to tell a story about his middle-school trigonometry class in the late 1970s, when the first solid-state, pocket-sized electronic calculators were coming onto the market. They were pricey, about $250, and he and his fellow math geeks were thrilled by the amazing things you could do with them. They wanted to be able to use them in class.

Not so fast. Their teachers were sure that their students would become dependent on the calculators and their math skills would suffer ever after. Calculators were banned from Ken’s math class. Instead, he was taught how to do trigonometry with a slide rule.

We hear arguments about the use of technology every year about this time, as students prepare to head back to school. Invariably, pundits fill the airways with extreme views on the role of technology in our lives, often quoting “studies” that confirm one ill effect or another. My favorite one headlining on the evening news this season contends that it’s the “Likes” on Facebook that’s making teens stupid. The logic seems to be that you can click “like” without really thinking and responding to the content on social media. Does that then mean that Comments sections make us smart? I don’t think so.

Best-selling author and Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman hailed MOOCs as “a budding revolution in global online education” that would universalize knowledge and slash skyrocketing college tuitions. Why stop there? “Nothing has more potential to lift people out of poverty,” Friedman insisted. Needless to say, in the passing years, MOOCs haven’t done a thing to lower tuition or end poverty. Such mad claims for technology’s ability to cure all problems are enough to send anyone back to her slide rule.

Here’s the connection between educational technophobia or technophilia: Both presume that technology in and of itself has superpowers that can either tank or replace human learning. Technology can automate many things. What it cannot automate is how humans learn something new and challenging. Neither can it, in its own right, rob us of our ability to learn when we want and need to learn. It can distract us, entice us away from the business of learning–but so can just about anything else when we’re bored.

Learning requires trial, error, making mistakes, correction, feedback, more trial, more errors, and onward on the road of social, interactive learning. Seymour Papert, a pioneer in the field of artificial intelligence and cofounder of the MIT Media Lab, was an influential theorist and passionate advocate of student-centered learning, or what he calls “constructionism.” He championed the idea that the best way to learn in the post-internet world of interactive communication is literally by constructing something: making, doing, exploring, experimenting, failing, analyzing the failures, and trying again.

Rather than having famous experts deliver the answers for neophytes to master, he believed it was the job of education to provide the “conditions for invention.” He posed problems to his students and let them figure out their way to the answer. He preferred to mix experts and nonexperts, specialists and novices, computer scientists and artists, and thought his role was to keep asking ever-more challenging questions. If he had been teaching Ken’s middle-school trig class, for example, he would have encouraged the kids to use calculators as a starting place for active learning. He might have them calculating sine, cosine, and tangent trigonometric functions in order to then be able to explore more complex trigonometric problems in areas where they had passionate interests: astronomy, programming, acoustics, optics, biology, chemistry, computer graphics, and other subjects far beyond the syllabus of eighth-grade math. In other words, they would learn that technology is a tool–and so is trigonometry.

Most of the technophobic responses to devices assume that school should be cordoned off from the real world. Far too many research studies prove or disprove the efficacy of technology by seeing if it improves students’ scores on conventional, multiple-choice, objective exams. That’s the wrong metric. The purpose of education should not be better grades or a diploma. It should be the best possible preparation for thriving in a complex and changing world.

It’s long past time that we found more engaged, effective ways of teaching than the lecture. In a 2014 analysis of 228 different studies of STEM teaching and learning comparing the efficacy of lectures (“continuous exposition by the teacher”) to active learning (“the process of learning through activities and/or discussion in class, as opposed to passively listening to an expert”), active learning won hands down, yielding greater success rates, completion rates, and higher exam grades than the traditional lecturing methods. It also took less time for students to master the material and methods.

That’s common sense, really. Instead of either banning devices or automating information retrieval–whether from a screen or a lecturer droning on from the podium–the best pedagogical research we have reinforces the idea that learning in the classroom is most effective when it proceeds pretty much the way it does when we try to master something new outside of school: learning incrementally, being challenged, trying again. I even studied for my driver’s test that way–and certainly that’s what I do if I’m aspiring to something really difficult.

Banning devices does nothing to empower students using these devices. Empowerment requires separating knee-jerk technophobia and technophilia from wise and real cautions. Today’s devices are so attractive and useful that it is hard to avoid using them, even when we know that they can render us and our most valuable data insecure. That’s a caveat worth paying attention to.

Calculators versus slide rules? Laptops versus calculators? In order to have a saner relationship to devices, we need to get rid of magical thinking. This is difficult, since there is a very long history of seeing technology as superhuman. Ken and his classmates would have been amused to know that in 17th century England many were wary of the spanking-new invention of the slide rule. Both Sir Isaac Newton and the Reverend William Oughtred, one of the slide rule’s inventors, used them privately and quietly. Many powerful dons and religious leaders of the day believed any man-made device that presumed to improve upon the capacities God had given humanity had to be heretical. As Galileo and others could testify, life didn’t go well for scientists who were thought to be of Satan’s party.

As school begins and the studies roll forth, keep this history in mind. Like many of the contemporary arguments against science, the roots of today’s technophobia and technophilia can be found in ancient worries about blasphemy. Sir Isaac Newton understood this. He taught his students how to use slide rules on the down low.

Cathy N. Davidson directs the Futures Initiative at the City University of New York (CUNY). Previously, she spent 25 years at Duke as a scholar and administrator. She is the author of many books including Now You See It and has written for the Wall Street Journal and Fast Company, among others. Davidson lives in New York.

In Master of None’s jinx-defying sophomore season, there is a standout episode and it’s called “Thanksgiving.” Over the course of 34 sharp, pitch-perfect minutes, we watch the evolving relationship between a black queer woman played by Lena Waithe and her mother (played by Angela Bassett). The episode was nominated for an Emmy for outstanding comedy writing, and if it ends up taking the trophy on September 17 (when the ceremony airs on CBS), Waithe will make history–for the second time in two months.

Waithe, who cowrote “Thanksgiving” with series creator Aziz Ansari, became the first African-American woman to be nominated for comedy writing when the nominations were announced in July. “It’s such a pinnacle to reach, just getting the nomination,” the 33-year old Waithe says. “It was very humbling and I felt a sense of pride to open that door.”

Waithe had been looking for a way in for a long time. She knew early on what she wanted to do for a living. While some aspiring writers wait for the light-bulb epiphany of a Perfect Idea before banging out their first pilot script, Waithe knew that execution was more important than any one idea. She began to hone her craft.

“I’ve been running this race for quite a long time, and I’ve been clocking in my 10,000 hours writing a lot of bad, bad scripts in order to get to some good ones,” she says.

After graduating from Chicago’s Columbia College in 2006, Waithe moved to L.A. and began her upward trajectory in TV writing. She worked as a production assistant, then became an assistant to the writer-filmmaker Gina Prince-Bythewood, who directed Love and Basketball and Beyond the Lights and also works in TV. Both jobs gave her crash-course experience in how writers actually write and how television gets made. All the while, she kept working on her own scripts, polishing them until she was ready to show them to the right people.

Waithe was especially excited about her pilot, The Chi, an hour-long coming-of-age drama set in the South Side of Chicago. When a writer from the series Bones got wind of the script, the writer put it in the hands of her bosses, who eventually offered Waithe a job on the show’s writing team. By the time she’d worked there for a season, she was developing The Chi with Showtime (where it will premiere next spring) and got hired as an actor on Master of None.

As tough as it was to get a foothold in writing, becoming an actor was a comparative breeze. Master of None‘s Denise, a savvy and sardonic dispenser of dating advice to Ansari’s Dev, is Waithe’s first recurring role. She got the part, which was originally written as male, because of her infectious confidence and the way she instantly vibed with Ansari. The fact that she was also a writer barely came into play, beyond yielding the occasional extra joke in some scenes. It wasn’t until the second season that Ansari asked Waithe to do more than act.

Ansari and Master of None co-creator Alan Yang had been considering a Denise-centric episode and they called Waithe into the writers’ room in New York to mine her brain for ideas. When Yang asked about her experience coming out, both creators were captivated by her response–an emotional account of growing up in a religious house and coming out to her mom in a diner.

“When you come out, you never have to jog your memory–you just don’t forget it,” Waithe says. “It’s like as if it was yesterday. Coming out of a closet is like having a baby. It is the most terrifying, nerve-wracking, crazy experience. I feel like anybody who’s ever come out of the closet probably would say the same thing. There’s just certain things that you hear from parents, family members’ reactions, friends–you just don’t forget any of it.”

Waithe soon got a phone call from Ansari: He and Yang wanted to turn her coming-out story into Denise’s story. They also wanted her to write it with them to ensure its authenticity. So they holed up together in a hotel room for a few days and wrote “Thanksgiving.”

The episode follows several years of Thanksgivings that childhood friends Denise and Dev spend together, all leading up to the moment when Denise’s mom comes to accept her daughter’s sexual orientation. There are plenty of laughs, of course, but they’re woven into to a narrative brimming with sincerity and specificity–from bedroom wall posters to conversational tics. It all rings searingly true.

Waithe knew she might be up for an Emmy for the script, but she was blindsided by the nomination’s historical significance.

“I did not know beforehand,” she says. “Maybe I just assumed someone had been nominated in that category. But a couple of my friends were like, ‘We’re googling it and we think you’re the first [black woman].’ And I was like, ‘I don’t think so. That can’t be.'”

Before publicly acknowledging the milestone, Waithe wanted to be absolutely sure. She asked her publicist, who then called the Television Academy, which confirmed it: Mindy Kaling was the first woman of color to win a comedy writing Emmy, for The Office, and Waithe was the first African-American woman.

Now that she’s broken down the barrier, Waithe wants to help others climb over it, too. Since the nomination, she’s felt a greater urgency to mentor other black female writers. She’s currently mentoring her assistant, Racquel Baker, along with a former assistant, Jessica Watson. She’s also taken under her wing a young woman named Disney Hall, who reached out to her through social media.

“There are so many young women out there who have a voice, who have a unique perspective and want to write,” Waithe says. “And I think it’s not only our job to mentor them but to help make sure they’re getting the classes they need, make sure they get an opportunity they’re right for. You can’t just call yourself a mentor by saying, ‘I’ll get you a job’ or ‘You’re doing fine.’ It’s about figuring out where they are as a writer, what they actually need, and helping them get it.”

And of course, she’s also keeping busy with her own projects.

In addition to working on The Chi, Waithe is hoping to sell another pilot, The Twenties. The semi-autobiographical comedy tells the story of a young queer black woman living in Los Angeles who happens to have two straight female best friends. She also has a role in Steven Spielberg’s forthcoming sci-fi drama, Ready Player One, due next spring.

She knows that this is not the moment to slow down. “After I got the Emmy announcement, then it’s that thing of, ‘Okay, now back to work,'” she says. “You can’t rest on your laurels. You’re still proving yourself, you still got to go in. I literally had a pitch meeting the following day. Mind you, it doesn’t hurt to walk in with that news about the Emmy, but you still got to go out and sell yourself and prove yourself and do the dance.”

When Anna Sui was just 4 years old, she decided she wanted to be a fashion designer.

She had left her hometown, in the suburbs of Detroit, to visit New York City for an aunt’s wedding. Even at that tender age, the Big Apple made a big impression on her: She loved the lights, energy, and architecture of the city, and was captivated by the fabulous gowns she saw at the wedding. “When we got home, I told my parents that I was going to move to New York to be a fashion designer,” Sui tells me. “I then spent my teen years trying to make that happen.”

Most adults don’t take the dreams of their preschoolers very seriously. Sui’s parents certainly didn’t. “I think they thought it was just a whim,” she says.

But it wasn’t. In junior high school, she wrote to Parsons School of Design to request their registration catalog, then did everything she needed to do to get accepted, such as building a portfolio and hitting the right grade point average. She got in, of course, but in the end she never graduated. In her second year, she was hired by designer Erica Elias to design clothes and style photoshoots for the Charlie’s Girls line. She eventually launched her own label, which was inspired by rock and roll subculture, and quickly gained a following among the A-listers of the ’90s, like Madonna, Marilyn Manson, Naomi Campbell, and Christy Turlington.

Now in her mid-60s, Sui is one of America’s most celebrated designers. Time Magazine named her one of the Top 5 Fashion Icons of The Decade in 2000 and she received a lifetime achievement award from the Council of Fashion Designers of America in 2009. Besides fashion, Sui has cosmetics, fragrance, and eyewear lines, as part of a fashion empire that is worth more than $400 million.

Today, she is adding adolescent furniture to that long list. Sui has partnered with PBTeen, Pottery Barn’s collection for tweens and teenagers, to recreate the bedroom she made for herself when she was 12 years old. At that point, her family had just moved into a new house. She had left a classic little girls’ hot pink bedroom and had the freedom to decorate her new room from scratch. Even as an early teen, Sui had a very distinctive vision of what she liked: striking colors, fantastical landscapes, and bold patterns. “I had just discovered Art Nouveau,” Sui says. “I decided to make the room entirely black and white.”

She went to a thrift store and found an old fashioned vanity, which she painted with black lacquer, and found a bedspread with an Art Nouveau pattern on it. She found a wicker headboard which she also painted black. She’s recreated all of these pieces for the PBTeen collection, together with many accent pieces, like throw pillows and jewelry stands, that decorated her childhood room.

The experience allowed Sui to go back in time and reminisce over her earliest creative influences. She recalls that around the time her family was moving houses, she found a large black-and-white poster of a drawing by Aubrey Beardsley, a British illustrator who lived in the late 1800s. Beardsley’s prints feature exotic, Japanese-inspired characters full of curlicued flowers and peacock feathers. It is easy to see his influence on Sui’s current work, which is full of dark, imaginative scenes.

Sui also remembers understanding, from a young age, that breaking into the fashion world would take hard work. “I think I was born to do this,” Sui says, about becoming a fashion designer. “But I also had that determination, which you really need to succeed. There is so much competition–business is so difficult–and I always had a tenacity that this was what I wanted to do.”

Since Sui believed she was a fashion designer in training when she was in her teens, many of her productivity habits began at that age. She also developed a mental habit of storing away things that inspired her. “Every time I look at something, it goes into a file in my brain for a future collection,” she says. “I think I learned early on that creativity is a process. You must keep moving forward and constantly refocusing.”

Sui doesn’t believe that creativity means that you have to be disorganized or unsystematic in your approach to work. As a teen, she created a list of all the things she had to learn to put a collection together, like sewing, sketching, and developing a coherent theme. All of this laid the foundation for a career in which she works reasonable hours in a peaceful studio, which is worlds away from the hectic, overworked lifestyles favored by most designers. “We usually finish at seven at night,” Sui says. “I don’t like to work late into the night. I like to be much more organized than that. I like to keep on schedule so that nobody has to stress out at the last moment, and pace it so that we’re not all going crazy.”

Related: Drugs, Wage Theft, And Boob Tape: Here’s What It’s Really Like Working In The Fashion Industry

That’s not to say that Sui doesn’t work a lot. She usually works seven days a week, and particularly loves going into her studio on the weekends and early in the morning, when it is quiet because her staff isn’t there. Sui believes this order and routine facilitate creativity, because it means that she’s always ready for when inspiration strikes, which can be random. “It hits you in the weirdest times,” she says. “When I am alone, sometimes I sketch, or browse the internet, or do research. You just never know when a moment of creativity is going to happen.”

With her PBTeen collection, Sui has enjoyed remembering the years when becoming a designer was just a faraway dream. But she’s also trying to send a message to the young women for whom she is designing the furniture, who will one day be living in a replica of her own childhood room. Many adolescents aspire to exciting, creative careers, but are told by their parents or teachers to come back to earth and pursue more achievable, mundane careers. Sui is living proof that nothing is out of reach. “To me, anything is possible, but you have to be dedicated to it,” she says. “One of the throw pillows I designed for the collection says, “Live Your Dreams.” That’s what my whole world is about.”

The company has just announced it is seeking a host city for its new “HQ2” facility, reports CNN. The new headquarters will reportedly cost as much as $5 billion to build and operate. Amazon said it would ideally like to place HQ2 in a suburban or urban area with more than 1 million people and has a community that “thinks big.” In return, the new HQ could employ as many as 50,000 local workers. Announcing the plans, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos said:

“We expect HQ2 to be a full equal to our Seattle headquarters. Amazon HQ2 will bring billions of dollars in up-front and ongoing investments, and tens of thousands of high-paying jobs. We’re excited to find a second home.”

Two of the biggest three-letter acronyms in technology are teaming up, again. Today IBM and MIT announced a new joint project to research artificial intelligence, such as developing better algorithms and to foster AI startups. IBM is dropping $240 million, over 10 years, into the MIT–IBM Watson AI Lab. The lab, which IBM says opens “immediately,” will eventually house more than 100 scientists, professors, and students. (It’s currently taking job applications for posts such as research staffer and software engineer.) They will collaborate with staffers at IBM’s Watson Health and Watson Security centers, also in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Research will include both the software of AI, such as new algorithms and neural networks, and also the hardware, such as applying quantum computing to speeding up machine learning processes. The lab will be something of an incubator, too. In a statement, IBM says that it will encourage MIT profs and students to launch AI startups. This isn’t the first tie-up between MIT and IBM. The AI Lab is just a few blocks from the Broad Institute, a cancer research center run by MIT and Harvard, where IBM is funding AI and genomics research. IBM also collaborates with the university’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences to develop machine vision AI.

For decades, a Fashion Week show was the one glamorous, media-laden event that young designers aimed to achieve. But across the industry, people are beginning to ask whether fashion week, as we know it, is still a relevant concept. It is possible that the next generation of aspiring designers will have other methods of displaying their new collections to the public.

New York Fashion Week began in the early ’90s, when it was still valuable for designers to show their collections to editors and buyers twice a year. But these days, consumers don’t have the patience to wait months to buy the products their favorite designers showed on the runway. In any case, fast-fashion brands like H&M and Zara have made an art of ripping off the hottest designs of the season and making them available in stores within weeks. And a Fashion Week show is an incredibly costly endeavor: Even with a partner like IMG, which can help keep costs down, a half-hour show can cost upwards of $100,000. Is it still worth it?

Some designers are already saying, “No.” As the “see now, buy now” model takes root, designers are beginning to replace the traditional runway show with a launch party for their new products. And with the consumer’s relentless desire for new products, shows no longer need to happen twice a year. Many designers are doing small capsule drops over the course of the year.

Designers have very different takes on New York Fashion Week. We chatted with two fashion icons, Rebecca Minkoff and Anna Sui, who have taken very different approaches. Sui, who has had a long career in American fashion, had her first runway show in 1991 and has been on the New York Fashion Week calendar ever since. Her shows tend to be theatrical performances, often with a clear overarching narrative, and are among the most popular events at Fashion Week.

Minkoff, a successful millennial designer, also began by showing her collections at New York Fashion Week in 2009, but over the last three years, she’s tweaked the model. She’s been experimenting with different approaches, such as doing live performances on the street outside her store, or moving the event to Los Angeles. She now always makes her product available for purchase immediately after the show.

I talked to both of them about whether they believe Fashion Week is still a worthwhile endeavor. Here are edited excerpts from our conversations.

The Case For Fashion Week–Anna Sui

The best showcase for what I am trying to say is a show. Every designer is different. I’m wired to do a show. I like to transport my audience and take them on a journey. I think that this is why people have always been interested in my vision. It’s never just about a pretty dress. There’s a lot more that goes along with it. There’s storytelling: The theme could be about rock stars, or Americana, or androgyny. But everything goes through my brain, so it has that Anna Sui flavor to it. I love casting the show. I’m known for my music. I’m involved with every part of the performance.

There’s a certain kind of creative energy that goes into preparing for fashion week. The month before the show, I am working seven days a week. I tend to have insomnia for a month where I wake up at two, three, or four in the morning sketching on the back of an envelope. I might be walking down the street and see something that sparks an idea, and I’ll go into the closest bank to find a receipt to draw on.

But it’s not just a wonderful performance: It makes business sense for me. I think that the show is what generates all the interest in my brand, including my licenses and my cosmetics and fragrance lines. I think it is an important part of what has made me successful.

Anna Sui street style duo @natalieoffduty and @dylanasuarez at #AnnaSuiFall17. Photo by @stephenesherman.

A post shared by Anna Sui (@annasui) on Feb 19, 2017 at 5:39pm PST

And now, on social media, it is possible to see how fans are interacting with the runway shows. I am on Instagram a couple of times a day and I love to see what other people are posting. We’ve discovered that there are people who do incredible drawings, inspired by what they saw on the runway, whether it’s the hairdos that I create or a pair of shoes or sunglasses that I designed. I love seeing it, because it’s a sign that your work is extending much further than you even realize.

But I’m also not living under a rock. Things are changing in the industry and we’re also trying to keep up. We’re modernizing by taking advantage of technology. We have a web store, where a lot of our current sales come from. We also do a lot of business through (Chinese social media platform) WeChat. We’re embracing all that, but I still love doing the show.

The Case Against Fashion Week–Rebecca Minkoff

Right now, the fashion industry is at the same point that the music industry was when Napster first appeared in 2008–right before the entire music industry exploded. In fashion, there are designers doing their own thing, throwing a bunch of shit against the wall. Then there’s a camp that is nostalgic, asking why things don’t just go back to how they were.

We’ve always taken the approach that we didn’t win by following the pack.  We won by listening to our consumer and going our own way.

Second, you could sense it in the people attending the shows. They were bored out of their minds. It seemed like the general consensus around Fashion Week was that it was boring and stale and there was nothing new.

So we decided to take a risk and go to the “See, Buy, Wear” model and see what happened. The first time was the hardest: We were trying to get out of old habits. But then the sales figures came in. The first season we did this, our sales were up 211% from February to February. The following season, they were up 264%. When we saw those numbers, we thought it would be really stupid not to continue. It’s not hard anymore. For all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t work for other designers, but for us, it really does. And an added benefit is that because we are doing something so different, we tend to get our own spotlight.

The cost is another thing to consider. Traditional New York Fashion Week shows are extremely expensive, especially for young designers. Our shows have been a fraction of the cost of a traditional fashion week show and we often have brands–from Amex to Tresemme to Essie to Chandon–that want to partner with us to sponsor the show. They’ve definitely helped to make the show an affordable activity.

if you're ????and you know it…

A post shared by Rebecca Minkoff (@rebeccaminkoff) on Feb 6, 2017 at 6:40pm PST

Moving forward, we’ve decided that we will always do the “See, Buy, Wear” model but the experience will shift every season. We might do it on a New York City street, in front of our store, we brought it to The Grove in Los Angeles. This year we’re doing a dramatically different show. We’re just playing with the model and testing out different ways to get our customer excited, then, at the end of the day, see something she likes and be able to have it immediately.

In the future I can imagine the industry going in a range of different directions. Perhaps Fashion Week shows will become ticketed events for consumers, which will help pay for them. What if the CFDA (Council of Fashion Designers of America) sold tickets, and a portion of the proceeds helped emerging designers? If it could become as successful as the boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and Conor McGregor, then everyone would win.

It was only a matter of time before internet treasure Randy Rainbow got his fabulously snarky clutches into Donald Trump’s DACA debacle–and to the surprise of no one, Rainbow provided some much needed catharsis.

When news broke Monday that Trump planned to dismantle Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a 2012 policy that provided relief from deportation for some 800,000 undocumented immigrants, it was yet another crossed-out line on his hit list toward progress. And thus became the foundation for Rainbow’s latest creation, “DACA Shame,” a song parody riffing off of Wayne Newton’s signature hit “Danke Schoen.”

In all seriousness, Rainbow doesn’t quite get the praise he deserves. Personally, I find Rainbow’s brand of political humor one of the most palatable in the wake of the apocalyptic administration that is Trump’s. Since November 9, 2016, I haven’t been able to stomach Saturday Night Live. Regardless of the fact that SNL is one of the preeminent voices of political satire, it ceased to be funny when the butt of all the jokes assumed the highest seat of power in the world. To me, no matter how bang-on and skewering Alec Baldwin’s version of Trump is, it still somehow humanizes someone who has made it his mission to dehumanize so many others–seeing an actor put on the costume of Trump just makes it feel like some jovial Halloween bash.

Rainbow’s signature approach to Trump’s administration–where he plays the role of a deliciously shady anchor relentlessly reading the likes of Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence, Steve Bannon, etc. using cleverly edited news clips and ending with a brilliant song parody–is what I want to see more of. I don’t want to laugh with Trump à la Baldwin or Anthony Atamanuik from The President Show, I want to laugh at him with someone right beside me doing the same.

People are lying more on their resumes.

New research from Robert Half’s OfficeTeam found that nearly half of survey respondents knew someone who had lied on a resume—a 25% increase over the company’s 2011 survey.

But how do you know? It can be tough to spot falsehoods right off the bat, but if you know what to look for, you can spot clues in inconsistencies or questionable assertions, says attorney and career branding expert Wendi M. Weiner, a board member of the National Resume Writers’ Association.

Here are six red flags that a resume statement could be a lie and needs verification.

Date Discrepancies

When start and end dates are listed as year-to-year instead of including the month and year, the candidate could be trying to hide job gaps or make previous employment seem longer than it was, says HR expert Matthew Burr, founder of Burr Consulting, LLC, a human resources consultancy. He’s also seen situations where start and end dates didn’t align properly.

While such fudging might not be an outright lie, it’s probably “an area that you’re going to want to dig into,” Burr says. It may be a mistake, or they may be trying to mislead you. It’s a good idea to find out, he says.

Lack Of Degree Specification

Education is another area where people often embellish or lie, Weiner says. While some people boldly state that they went to a school they didn’t attend, others are misleading in more subtle ways.

One tell-tale sign is that the individual doesn’t put the type of degree earned, she says. When they just say they earned a bachelor’s degree instead of a bachelor of science (BS) or bachelor of fine arts (BFA), ask more questions, she says. “I’ll say, ‘Did you get a bachelor’s degree?’ They’ll say, ‘Yeah. I was 10 or 12 credits short.’ I would rather they put in the resume, ‘Completed 110 credits toward bachelor’s degree.’ You’re being honest that you have completed coursework toward it or a certain amount, but not saying that you’ve got a degree when you haven’t,” she says.

Short Stints At Big Names

Odd wording can also be an indicator that something is amiss, Weiner says. Sometimes, people who have worked as contractors or through intermediary firms, such as staffing agencies, for large firms will cut out the middleman information and say they worked for the big firm, she says.

“I’ve seen young lawyers put that they were a contract attorney for a top 100 firm, but they actually weren’t employed by the firm as a contract attorney. They were employed by [an intermediary firm] who is really the true employer that has assigned this young attorney to a project to work at the big firm. What happens is by putting that you are a contract attorney for the actual named law firm, you’re lying,” she says. These out-of-the-blue stints with big-name firms should trigger some questions, she says.

Big Jumps

Similarly, if a candidate has a big jump on his or her resume—for example, from administrative assistant to manager—in a short period of time at one firm or between two jobs, Burr says it’s a good idea to investigate. “I’m not saying it’s not possible to do that, but it’s a red flag,” he says. People give themselves the title they feel they deserve on their resume, instead of the actual title they had.

Odd Job Descriptions

The OfficeTeam survey found that job experience (76%) and duties (55%) were cited as the areas that are most frequently embellished. When you see “vague descriptions of skills or skills that aren’t consistent with the job duties or job title,” you might be seeing that hyperbole in action, says OfficeTeam district president Brandi Britton.

If the candidate gets to the interview stage, ask specific questions about job title and responsibilities—and be sure to check references to verify information, she says. “A lot of times, when you dig into skills, you find out that they’ve just been exposed to it—they took a class or got a booklet on it,” she says.

Too Much “I”

Burr also balks at resumes that uses the pronoun “I” instead of “we” too much. If the candidate is taking too much credit or claims responsibility individually for something that was clearly a team effort, he wants to know more about what the person’s actual role was in the accomplishment.

Resume embellishment can range from minor overstatements to outright fabrication of credentials. But should you treat every untruth or embellishment the same? Weiner says you should review them on a case-by-case basis. It’s one thing to omit the month that you left a job to hide the three-week nightmare job that you left abruptly. It’s another thing to willfully include false dates, employers, or degrees.

“It’s the outright lying where you’re clearly not even stretching the truth anymore, but it’s really a misrepresentation of that information is where it’s problematic,” she says.

If Spotify’s latest move is any indication, you should expect to see more media streaming services bundled together. The music subscription market leader just announced a partnership with Hulu wherein eligible college students can get Spotify Premium and Hulu’s TV and movie library for a mere $5 per month. This combo of all-you-can-stream entertainment would normally cost at least $18 per month (or $22 if you opt for Hulu’s commercial-free tier), so this is quite a deal. As we enter the back-to-school season (and the fourth financial quarter of the year for these companies), it’s bound to give each service’s subscriber count at least a small boost.

Yes, the new Spotify/Hulu bundle is only available to college students, but a press release sent out by Spotify says that this is just the “first step” in the new partnership toward “offerings targeted at the broader market.” As Spotify gears up to go public later this year or early next–and braces to see if Apple has any new music subscriber numbers to share at its iPhone launch event next week–it can use all the new sign-ups it can get.