Humans are bad for the Earth. This week’s devastating report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change made clear that climate genocide is coming, with hundreds of millions of lives at stake. If that news makes you want to crawl into a hole, or consider jumping ship to a Mars colony in the near but indeterminate future, think again: It turns out we’re making the universe just as inhabitable, too.

At this given moment, there are nearly 18 million pounds of junk circling our planet, much of it detritus from old rockets and satellites. Those tens of thousands of pieces of trash are already costing us, causing a growing number of collisions with our digital communication infrastructure each year (including the satellites powering our GPS, 5G networks, and more), and they’re densifying at a rate that could one day blockade us from safely sending anything off into space, let alone ourselves, in as few as 30 years.

Space waste is an overlooked issue that Daan Roosegaarde–the Dutch artist-designer and engineer that brought us the world’s first smog vacuum cleaner (then transformed its collected soot into diamond rings)–is hoping to bring more attention to with his latest project, the Space Waste Lab.

The project launched last week in Almere, the Netherlands, with a set of live performances featuring bright-green beams of high-focused LED light projected into the sky, pointing to actual pieces of space waste that are orbiting anywhere from 125 to 12,500 miles above the Earth. Each event was a real-time visualization of the junk that surrounds our atmosphere, in other words–an eerie take on stargazing for our dystopian age.

Roosegaarde hopes the large-scale artwork will serve as a call to action, and after witnessing the success of his studio’s Smog-Free Tower–now installed in China, Poland, and the Netherlands, with a video about the project garnering more than 34 million online views from the World Economic Forum–he believes it’s his responsibility to apply his skills to bring awareness to a sustainable cause.

“I became fascinated with the idea of cleaning up our landscape, our environment, and trying to humanize them again, and so began to think, maybe space waste can be an ingredient, maybe it’s a building block to do something new.”

More than 8,000 people attended the Space Waste Lab launch, and the “alien beauty” of the LED beams moving across the sky garnered the attention of at least one local website that reported a UFO sighting with “two green, intersecting laser beams pointing into the sky,” Roosegaarde says, with a laugh. “Just having people look up into the sky, being more curious–that’s a start.”

The light performances will continue twice a month through January 19 as the first phase of the Lab’s long-term endeavor. At the nearby Kunstlinie Almere Flevoland arts center, an educational exhibit produced with European Space Agency experts shares further resources, including real pieces of space debris, and prompts visitors to investigate how the waste may be potentially harnessed and upcycled.

Moving toward a more circular economy will be necessary for a sustainable environment–and the model is already being adopted in some corners of industrial design to city planning. Roosegaarde believes it needs to be applied to solve the space waste issue, too. As part of the project’s next phase, he’ll be launching a symposium and multi-year research initiative dedicated to fixing and capturing space waste, and even use the reclaimed material to one day create a 3D-printing hub on the Moon.

“Right now, our economics center around money and time,” Roosegaarde says. “We need to change that around to focus on clean air, clean water, clean space.”

With digital communication satellites worth hundreds of billions of dollars, it’s in our own interest to maintain and reuse the materials we send up into the sky: “If we could find a way to transform the debris into a building block to upcycle it, saving energy and money, it’s as valuable as gold.”

Up until two years ago, when the project first began, Roosegaard admits he wasn’t aware of space waste, though he remembers the exact moment he learned of it. He had chanced upon an image on a colleague’s desktop screen–“it was a lot of white dots, centered around one larger, bigger dot in the middle,” as he describes it, “and looked like something of a Jackson Pollock painting.” In fact, it was a data visualization of space waste currently orbiting the Earth, an unfathomable ecosystem of matter hidden from our naked eyes.

“That’s the moment when I became intrigued. It held this kind of obscene beauty, on one hand, and yet struck me as absolutely sick, that we are polluting spaces even outside the Earth’s atmosphere, and continue to do it,” says Roosegaarde. “This is the first time we’ve started a project with a question, both for ourselves and to the audience, which is kind of scary, because as a designer, I lose control. And yet it’s totally intriguing, because we don’t know where it will take us.”

“What we can do is try to begin correcting reality,” he adds. “I’m not a mayor or a politician; I’m a designer and an engineer, and this is what I can do to help contribute to the solution. There’s not a lack of money or technology in this world–there’s plenty of both–but there’s a lack of imagination, and guts, to redefine how we want our world to look like, and how we want to live in it.”

Privé Revaux, a digitally native brand, just launched some of the most inexpensive prescription eyewear on the market. On the brand’s website, you can get trendy frames, plus RX lenses, for $59.99. Warby Parker made a big splash in the market when it launched in 2010 with $95 prescription eyewear, which was significantly lower than most optical shops charged at the time.

“The truth is, eyewear is incredibly inexpensive to make,” says David Schottenstein, Privé Revaux’s founder. “In most cases, you’re paying for branding, marketing, and celebrity endorsements. The frames and lenses themselves don’t cost very much to make.”

Schottenstein launched Privé Revaux in June 2017 with a line of trendy $29.95 sunglasses. He eschewed paid celebrity endorsements, but ingeniously brought on celebrities Jamie Foxx, Hailee Steinfeld, and Ashley Benson as investors and partners.

And thanks to these big names, the brand has become a favorite in Hollywood, garnering a star-studded list of fans that includes Jennifer Lopez, Cara Delevingne, Blake Lively, Steph Curry, Gigi Hadid, Chrissy Teigen, and Nick Jonas, among many others. This helped transform Privé Revaux into an overnight success: It turned a profit within three months of launch, and sold more than a million pairs of glasses within a year.

Now, Schottenstein wants to bring this democratic approach to prescription lenses. Customers can either take an online prescription exam or submit a prescription from a licensed optician, and receive their prescription eyewear in 10 to 12 days. “We’re hoping this will make it more accessible for people to get trendy glasses that they love, and to get a new pair as soon as their prescription changes,” he says.

Before Trump pumped the breaks, Harriet Tubman was supposed to be the new face of the $20 bill. Now, there’s doubt about whether the Treasury will issue the bills at all. But imagine an alternate universe in which a woman graces not just one bill, but all the bills.

That’s exactly what former treasurer of the United States Rosie Rios has envisioned. In partnership with a group of women at Google, she visualized what it would look like to have a host of women from U.S. history on our bills. The project is called Notable Women, and it uses augmented reality to superimpose portraits of 100 amazing American women on bills. The women were drawn from a list that Rios helped formulate to narrow down which woman should be the next historic person featured on the $20. “I couldn’t help but think, ‘Why do we have to choose just one?'” Rios tells Fast Company via email. “Couldn’t there be some way to celebrate all of these women on our currency?”

Along with the Notable Women website, where you can scroll through and see the images of women on the dollar bill with a description of their contributions to society, Google developed an app as well. Via the app, you can point your phone’s camera at any U.S. bill and see George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or Andrew Jackson magically transform into an accomplished woman, like Wilma Mankiller (the first female chief of the Cherokee Nation), Wilma Rudolph (a sprinter who was the first American woman to win three gold medals at the Olympics), or Annie Jump Cannon (an astronomer who discovered more than 300 stars). Each portrait has been carefully tweaked to assume the look of American money portraits, fitting the style and gravitas of being on a bill.

The project is primarily designed for use in the classroom, to encourage teachers and students to highlight women’s role in the history of the country. To that end, Notable Women also includes a section for teachers, with three sets of age-appropriate lesson plans, a poster that works with the augmented reality app, and a bulletin board with images of all 100 women on the currency.

You can scroll through all the images, seeing the women and learning about their accomplishments here.

We all know that it costs money to hire. Recruiters have to advertise on job sites, conduct interviews, run background checks and, of course, dispense and retrieve all of the paperwork associated with adding an employee.

But did you know that, according to Bersin by Deloitte, the average cost per hire is almost $4,000?

That number will vary, depending on job level and on hiring practices, but every hiring manager can relate to the problem of inflated talent acquisition costs. Why does bringing on a new employee –which is supposed to be a business solution–drain so many resources? Why do accountants and financial executives pale at the notion of launching a candidate search?

If you look a little deeper, you may find that the issue has more to do with onboarding a new employee after the hiring decision than it does with recruiting. Many HR professionals have a blind spot for this part of the process.

There are several factors that can silently, insidiously hike the cost of employee onboarding:

Onboarding paperwork and administrative time

Onboarding requires a lot of paperwork–benefits enrollment, tax forms, employee handbooks, NDAs, arbitration agreements, and so on. But you probably don’t spend enough on paper and ink to make a significant dent in your budget. The real cost sink comes from the time it takes to manage the completion of that paperwork and other administrative aspects of onboarding. Let’s say a recruiter makes $25 an hour, and you hire 50 new employees per year, and it takes 10 hours of administrative time to process their documents. That adds up to $12,500 per year–probably a conservative estimate for larger companies.

There are a few ways you can minimize this time. First, digitize your onboarding paperwork. There are plenty of HR software solutions on the market that can bring all of the hiring processes’ administrative tasks into one system, with self-service access for employees. Second, you can ask your new hires to complete all of their paperwork before day one on the job. That way, they won’t waste paid time filling out forms; they’ll spend it learning the job. According to Aberdeen, “best-in-class” companies are 53% more likely to begin the onboarding process before day one.

Early turnover of new hires

If you invest weeks of time and effort into onboarding only to see an employee quit six months later, you’ve essentially wasted all of those resources. If this happens multiple times per year, the financial impact can be devastating.

Research shows that being more intentional and structured during the onboarding process can help stave off early turnover. A case study by Corning Glass Works, for example, found that employees who attended a structured orientation program were 69% more likely to stay with the company for three years. That’s probably because good onboarding sets clear expectations for employees and equips them for success, which means they’re less likely to encounter surprises.

Deferred productivity for new employees

Another hidden cost of onboarding comes from the reduced productivity that is typical of ramp-up periods, the time during which a new hire is still learning their role and getting acclimated to the work environment–i.e., “learning the ropes.”

New employees get less work done because they’re still figuring out how to execute their responsibilities, navigate new communication workflows, and establish relationships. For example, they might have to do research on an account and get up to speed before they start working with decision makers on that account. Some sources suggest it can take as long as long as eight months for an employee to become fully productive.

The answer here is to expand your onboarding process further into the “probationary” period. Don’t just cover the paperwork and administrative portion; make a plan for each employee to receive the training and mentoring they need to succeed. Sit down with them on a regular basis and see how things are going. Do they have the resources they need? Have they encountered any problems with processes or coworkers?

Provisioning during onboarding

Every new employee will need to get set up with a certain array of “stuff.” That stuff could include anything from a laptop and headset to software credentials, key fobs, ergonomic chairs, monitors, parking permits, and branded clothing. All of this stuff costs money.

Most of it you won’t be able to eliminate, especially if it’s required for the employee to function. But there are ways to be responsible with provisioning that can reduce costs in the long run. For starters, keep track of everything you give out to new employees, and try to standardize the process as much as possible. An inventory system for hardware and equipment isn’t a bad idea. This is especially important for large enterprises that might hire 100-plus people every year.

On the IT side, you should also consider the impact of technology on your ability to scale. If your company is still working from a collection of desktop-based systems, you’ll need to purchase a new license and run multiple installs every time you add a team member, not to mention the expense of doing this for remote workers (versus the ease of adding users to a web-based platform).

Even as you try to cut costs associated with hiring new employees, remember that one of the most expensive recruiting mistakes is a slipshod hiring process that yields uncommitted workers. When those employees quit in nine months, you’ll pay the ultimate price. Be smart and efficient where you can, but don’t cut out crucial steps just to save a few bucks.

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

Gary Smith is the Fletcher Jones professor of economics at Pomona College.

We are told AI is on an inevitable rise and humans simply can’t measure up. In no time, the headlines say, artificial intelligence will take our jobs, fight our wars, manage our health, and, perhaps eventually, call the shots for the flesh-and-blood masses. Big data, it seems, knows best.

Don’t buy it.

The reality is, computers still can’t think like us, though they do seem to have gotten into our heads. Intimidated by the algorithms, humanity could use a little pep talk.

It is true that computers know more facts than we do. They have better memories, make calculations faster, and do not get tired like we do.

Robots far surpass humans at repetitive, monotonous tasks like tightening bolts, planting seeds, searching legal documents, and accepting bank deposits and dispensing cash. Computers can recognize objects, draw pictures, drive cars. You can surely think of a dozen other impressive–even superhuman–computer feats.

It is tempting to think that because computers can do some things extremely well, they must be highly intelligent. In a Harvard Business School study published in April, experimenters compared the extent to which people’s opinions about things like the popularity of a song were influenced by “advice” that was attributed either to a human or a computer. While a subset of expert forecasters found the human more persuasive, for most people in the experiment, the advice was more persuasive when it came from the algorithm.

Computers are great and getting better, but computer algorithms are still designed to have the very narrow capabilities needed to perform well-defined chores, like spell checking and searching the internet. This is a far cry from the general intelligence needed to deal with unfamiliar situations by assessing what is happening, why it is happening, and what the consequences are of taking action.

Computers cannot formulate persuasive theories. Computers cannot do inductive reasoning or make long-run plans. Computers do not have the emotions, feelings, and inspiration that are needed to write a compelling poem, novel, or movie script. Computers do not know, in any meaningful sense, what words mean. Computers do not have the wisdom humans accumulate by living life. Computers do not know the answers to simple questions like these:

If I were to mix orange juice with milk, would it taste good if I added salt?

Is it safe to walk downstairs backwards if I close my eyes?

I don’t know how long it will take to develop computers that have a general intelligence that rivals humans. I suspect that it will take decades. I am certain that people who claim that it has already happened are wrong, and I don’t trust people who give specific dates. In the meantime, please be skeptical of far-fetched science fiction scenarios and please be wary of businesses hyping AI products.

Forget emotions and poems: Take today’s growing fixation with using high-powered computers to mine big data for patterns to help make big decisions. When statistical models analyze a large number of potential explanatory variables, the number of possible relationships becomes astonishingly large–we are talking in the trillions.

If many potential variables are considered, even if all of them are just random noise, some combinations are bound to be highly correlated with whatever it is we are trying to predict through AI: cancer, credit risk, job suitability, potential for criminality. There will occasionally be a true knowledge discovery, but the larger the number of explanatory variables considered, the more likely it is that a discovered relationship will be coincidental, transitory, and useless–or worse.

Algorithms that monitor word usage on Facebook or Twitter to evaluate job applicants might find spurious correlations that are poor predictors of job performance, but have disparate impacts on different genders, races, sexual orientation, and ages.

In 2016, Admiral Insurance developed a car-insurance algorithm that considered whether people liked Michael Jordan or Leonard Cohen on Facebook. A few hours before the scheduled launch, Facebook said that it would not allow Admiral to access Facebook data; Facebook may have been less concerned about discrimination or privacy than the fact that it has its own patented algorithm for evaluating loan applications based on the characteristics of you and your Facebook friends.

More recently, an Amazon job-application algorithm that was trained primarily on the resumes of male engineers reportedly “penalized” resumes with the word “women” in it. Amazon eventually killed the software once it became evident that, despite their best efforts, its engineers couldn’t be certain the algorithm still wasn’t discriminating against women.

In 2017, the founder and CEO of a Chinese company behind an AI lending app argued that, “While banks only focus on the tip of the iceberg above the sea, we build algorithms to make sense of the vast amount of data under the sea.” What useful data are under the sea? You might be surprised to learn that it is all about the smartphones.

The CEO bragged that, “We don’t hire any risk-control people from traditional financial institutions . . . We don’t need human beings to tell us who’s a good customer and who’s bad. Technology is our risk control.” Among the data that show up as evidence of a person being a good credit risk was how often incoming calls are answered. Not only is a propensity for answering phone calls nonsense, it surely discriminates against people whose religious beliefs forbid answering the phone on certain days or at certain times of the day.

Computers cannot assess whether the patterns they find are meaningful or meaningless. Only logic, wisdom, and common sense can. Just ask the veterans of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign , which relied heavily on a software program and ignored–until it was too late–the human pleas to pay attention to Michigan and Wisconsin. Seasoned campaign workers knew there was an enthusiasm deficit, but enthusiasm is difficult to measure, so the computer ignored the experts.

The situation is exacerbated if the discovered patterns are concealed inside black boxes, where even the researchers and engineers who design the algorithms do not understand the details inside the black box. Often, no one knows fully why a computer concluded that this stock should be purchased, this job applicant should be rejected, this patient should be given this medication, this prisoner should be denied parole, this building should be bombed.

The combination of AI with digital advertising and highly personal data broadens the scope of the potential damage, as in the case of Trump campaign contractor Cambridge Analytica. The avalanche of personal data collected by business and government is being used to push and prod us to buy things we don’t need, visit places we don’t enjoy, and vote for candidates we shouldn’t trust.

In the age of AI and big data, the real danger is not that computers are smarter than us, but that we think computers are smarter than us and therefore trust computers to make important decisions for us. We should not be intimidated into thinking that computers are infallible. Let’s trust ourselves to judge whether statistical patterns make sense and are therefore potentially useful, or are merely coincidental and therefore fleeting and useless.

Human reasoning is fundamentally different from artificial intelligence, which is why it is needed more than ever.

Smith is the author of The AI Delusion, published this month by Oxford University Press.

If you’re charged with a crime in the United States and can’t pay bail, a judge will lock you up until your trial to make sure you actually appear. You can go into debt to a bond company to cover the bail, or–guilty or not–risk losing your job, home, and even your children while you wait behind bars for months.

In California, that will soon change. Beginning in October of next year, a law signed by Governor Jerry Brown will replace the bail system with a computer program that can parse your background and determine the likelihood that you will flee if released. Judges will use a resulting flight-risk and public safety-risk “score” to determine whether to keep you jailed, or let you free while you await trial.

The new law is supposed to help remove biases in the bail system, which mostly harms poor people, and it’s part of a growing trend in the use of software in the day-to-day machinery of the justice system. In the United States alone, courts already have at least 60 such programs in use in different jurisdictions that assess, for example, the risk that someone will follow the rules before their trial or commit a crime if they’re released. Some of these algorithms are relatively simple, while others use complex combinations of data beyond criminal history, including gender, age, zip code, and parents’ criminal backgrounds, as well as information from collections agencies, social media, utility bills, camera feeds, and even call logs from pizza chains.

As the criminal justice system becomes more automated and digitized, police officers, prosecutors, and judges have increasingly massive data sets at their fingertips. The problem, as many critics have repeatedly argued, is that the algorithms that parse, interpret, and even learn from all this data may themselves be biased–both in how they are built and how the courts wield them. Judges, for example, only rely on computer programs “when they like the answer” it gives, says Margaret Dooley-Sammuli of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which, despite early support, opposed the California bill.

Preliminary data bear this out: Judges don’t always follow the algorithms’ recommendations, often detaining people despite low risk scores, according to analysts at Upturn, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit. And ongoing research–including work from the University of Texas at Austin and Stanford University that focuses on the use of algorithms in the Los Angeles Police Department and criminal courts, respectively–adds to these troubling hints of bias.

“Risk assessment tools are used at every single step of the criminal justice system,” says Angèle Christin, a Stanford sociologist, and “predictive tools build on top of each other.” This suggests that in California and beyond, these layered biases could become more difficult to observe, which would in turn make it harder to police how the criminal justice system uses the tools.

An algorithm–essentially a set of commands that tells a computer what to do–is only as good as the data it pulls from. In order to get a close look at police data collection at the ground level, Sarah Brayne, a sociologist at UT Austin, embedded with the LAPD–a department that, along with Chicago and New York, leads the way in harnessing surveillance tools, big data, and computer algorithms.

Police departments’ use of predictive software falls into two broad categories: The first is place-based policing, which uses past crime data to redirect police patrols to 500-square-foot “hot spots” that are forecast to a higher crime risk. For this, the LAPD uses a program from PredPol, one of the largest predictive policing companies in the U.S. The second is person-based policing, where the police generate a ranked list of “chronic offenders” or “anchor points”–with the “hottest” individuals expected to commit the most crime. For these applications, the LAPD uses Operation Laser, based in part on software developed by Palantir Technologies, which was cofounded in 2003 by the billionaire venture capitalist and entrepreneur Peter Thiel.

Brayne expected the LAPD to embrace the new technologies and surveillance. “I came into it thinking, information is power,” she says. But it turned out that individual officers didn’t always collect all the data. Since body cameras and GPS, among other tools, could be used to monitor the cops’ own activities, it made them nervous. For example, “all cars are equipped with automatic vehicle locators, but they weren’t turned on because they’re resisted by the police officers’ union,” Brayne says. “Police officers don’t want their sergeants to see, oh, they stopped at Starbucks for 20 minutes.” (Brayne says the locators have since then been turned on, at least in the LAPD’s central bureau.)

Even when the police do collect the data, bias can still sneak in. Take Operation Laser. The system originally gave people points for things like prior arrests and for every police contact, moving them up the list. This was a flaw, says Ferguson: “Who are the police going to target when they contact the people with the most points? The ones they’ve contacted. They’ve literally created a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

There are some efforts to prevent these biases, however. The LAPD is tinkering with Laser “since it turned out to be subjective and there was no consistency in what counts as a ‘quality’ contact,” says LAPD Deputy Chief Dennis Kato. “Now, we’re not going to assign points for [police] contacts at all.” The LAPD also reevaluates Laser zones every six months to decide if certain locations no longer need extra police attention. “It’s never the case that a computer spits out something and a human blindly follows it,” Kato says. “We always have humans making the decisions.”

In other cases, the ground-level data collection and how it is used remain a black box. Most risk assessment algorithms used in courts, for example, remain proprietary and are unavailable to defendants or their attorneys.

Some hints come from one publicly available software package called the Public Safety Assessment, created by the Texas-based foundation of billionaires Laura and John Arnold, which is used in cities and states across the country, though not L.A. But even this level of transparency doesn’t clarify exactly what factors most affect a risk score and why, nor does it reveal what data an algorithm was trained on. In some cases, the simple fact of being 19 years old appears to weigh as much as three assaults and domestic violence counts. And if single-parent households or over-policed communities factor into the risk calculation, black defendants are often disproportionately labeled as high risk.

“You have this tool that holds a mirror up to the past in order to predict the future,” says Megan Stevenson, an economist and legal scholar at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School in Arlington, Virginia. “If the past contains racial bias and histories of economic and social disadvantage that are correlated with crime,” she says, “people are concerned that they’re either going to embed or exacerbate race and class disparities.”

And if a person is labeled high-risk by an algorithm, it could follow them through pretrial and, if they are convicted, sentencing or parole.

“We were concerned because any time you’re using a generalized tool to decide something, you run the risk of a cookie-cutter approach,” says San Francisco public defender Jeff Adachi. “Some would argue that that’s what we’re trying to work toward in criminal justice, where everyone’s going to be treated the same, but even that statement is subjective.” (The San Francisco and L.A. District Attorney’s offices both declined interview requests.)

Between 2015 and 2016, Christin, the Stanford sociologist, conducted her own fieldwork, which included interviews with 22 judges, attorneys, probation officers, clerks, and technology developers at three randomly chosen American criminal courts in California, on the East Coast, and in the southern U.S. Christin found that while some American judges and prosecutors closely followed the tool’s recommendations, others ignored them. On seeing the printed pages of a software package’s results in defendants’ files, one prosecutor told her: “I didn’t put much stock in it.” The judges she spoke to also preferred to rely on their own experience and discretion. “I think that’s interesting,” Christin says, “because it says something about how the tools can be used differently from the way that people who built them were thinking.”

When it comes to pretrial risk assessment tools like the ones that Gov. Brown plans to introduce in California, the track records are also mixed. Mandatory pretrial algorithms in Kentucky, which started in 2011, were supposed to increase efficiency by keeping more people who would have committed crimes in jail and releasing those who were low-risk. But the risk assessment tools didn’t deliver, according to work by Stevenson. The fraction of people detained before trial dropped by only 4 percentage points and later drifted back up. Slightly more people failed to appear for their trials, and pretrial arrests remained the same. Stevenson also points out that most judges are elected, which creates an incentive to keep people in jail. If someone they released goes on to commit a crime, there may be political blowback, while detaining a person who possibly didn’t need to be won’t likely affect the judge’s reelection.

Still, Brayne and Christin both said they expect that more data from more sources will be collected and processed automatically–and behind the scenes–in coming years. Police officers may have risk scores and maps pop up on their dashboards, while judges will have risk assessments for everyone at every step and for every kind of crime, giving the impression of precision. As it stands, however, any imprecisions or biases that point police toward you or your zip code are only likely to be amplified as one new software package is built upon the next. And current laws, including California’s bail reform, don’t provide detailed regulations or review of how police and courtroom algorithms are used.

The computer programs are moving too fast for watchdogs or practitioners to figure out how to apply them fairly, Christin says. But while the technology may appear more “objective and rational” so that “discretionary power has been curbed,” she adds, “in fact, usually it’s not. It’s just that power moves through a new place that may be less visible.”

Ramin Skibba (@raminskibba) is an astrophysicist turned science writer and freelance journalist who is based in San Diego. He has written for The Atlantic, Slate, Scientific American, Nature, and Science, among other publications.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Princess Eugenie has married her long-time partner Jack Brooksbank, giving royal watchers their latest wedding fix.

The princess, who is ninth in line to the throne, walked down the aisle at St. George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle, aka the same spot where her cousin Prince Harry married Meghan Markle earlier this year. In the audience were her grandmother, better known as the Queen, and Prince Philip, along with her father Prince Andrew and mother, Sarah Ferguson, as well as Prince William, Kate Middleton, Prince Harry, and Meghan Markle, and some 850 guests (including Naomi Campbell, Cara Delevigne, and Kate Moss) and 1,200 commoners chosen by ballot for the privilege of watching from the grounds.

If you opted to spend the wee hours of the morning sleeping instead of watching yet another royal wedding, here are five memorable moments so you can stay in the pop culture loop:

• Prince William and Kate Middleton held hands—in public

While this sounds like typical married couple behavior, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge rarely engage in public displays of affection, due to something called “royal protocol.” So when a camera caught the two briefly holding hands in the pews of St. George’s Chapel, the royal-watching world was “Awwwwww”- struck.

William and Kate in a rare PDA ???? #RoyalWedding#KATEMIDDLETONpic.twitter.com/AyInVXNpAW

— Kate Middleton Style (@KateMiddStyle) October 12, 2018

• Princess Eugenie borrowed an emerald tiara from the Queen

Wedding watchers thought Princess Eugenie would wear the tiara that her mum wore for her wedding to Prince Andrew. Eugenie, though, opted not to wear it (guessing it’s cursed?) and instead, for her “something borrowed,” she wore the Queen’s Emerald Kokoshnik Tiara. Originally made for society host Margaret Greville in 1919, its style reflects that of the Russian Imperial court, according to the royal family’s website. Greville gave the show-stopping tiara to Queen Elizabeth in 1942, which is pretty much the nicest gift ever.

• They did a reading from The Great Gatsby

No, really. The bride’s sister, Princess Beatrice, read a passage from the F. Scott Fitzgerald novel and the Dean of Windsor mentioned it in his homily. No one tell them how the book ends, okay?

• Princess Charlotte nearly stole the show

Prince George and Princess Charlotte served as page boy and bridesmaid at the wedding, as they did at the nuptials of their uncle Prince Harry to Meghan Markle. This time, though, Princess Charlotte couldn’t stop waving at the crowds, which was so cute that Vogue wrote nearly an entire article about it.

We ???? Princess Charlotte's royal wave! ???? pic.twitter.com/tzHXgZQ0Cq

— This Morning (@thismorning) October 12, 2018

• Cara Delevingne also nearly stole the show

Model, actress, and friend of the bride Cara Delevingne strolled up to the chapel in a tiny tuxedo complete with top hat and tails.

LIKE A SEXY ARTFUL DODGER https://t.co/uqNm3UmATz

— Caitlin Moran (@caitlinmoran) October 12, 2018

Morgan Fraser is head of product for the retail startup thisopenspace. She spoke to Doreen Lorenzo for Designing Women, a series of interviews with brilliant women in the design industry.

Doreen Lorenzo: What was your journey to get to this position?

Morgan Fraser: I’d been working with startups for a while, and I was trying to figure out my next step. I also make pottery and textiles, and had heard about thisopenspace through getting involved with pop-ups and markets. What excited me about thisopenspace is it opened this door to a new wave of makers. The concept of pop-ups felt empowering, which allows people to test and try out selling their products without having to pay for a multi-year lease. A mutual acquaintance connected me with Yashar Nejati, the CEO of thisopenspace, and we quickly found ways I could elevate thisopenspace from a design and a product perspective. I was brought in as employee number one about three years ago, and the company has grown since then.

DL: What was your mission? What were you tasked to do? Where did you start?

MF: When I started at thisopenspace, the online marketplace to discover and book space was very manual. We were able to validate product-market fit by experimenting rapidly. I was brought on to bring the marketplace from the manual testing process to a scalable technology product–creating all of the UX design for the platform, product managing the process, and working closely with engineering.

DL: How did you discover the processes to get to what you have today?

MF: We get things out quickly and iterate on them based on data and talking to the people using our platform. We get a lot of user feedback, so part of my job is to figure out how to best move forward with that insight. With this mass amount of raw data, I have to determine how we can interpret it to help inform what features and improvements will have the most leverage.

DL: You have a small team. How do you mentor that team so that they can test out and try out new ideas?

MF: The best way to lead a team is to make sure that your team feels your support so you can give them the authority and autonomy to confidently take risks. It’s critical to nurture your team’s creativity to push beyond safe ideas. We advocate for radical candor and a spirit of debate. My goal as head of product is not for me to be right; it’s for us as a team to have the best decision moving forward.

DL: Talk about your design process.

MF: We get designers, engineers, and stakeholders across teams tackling the same problem. One of the main things in our design process is staying in the “problem space” for as long as possible. This includes looking to users and getting raw analytical feedback so that we don’t make assumptions. We’re always trying to validate that the problems we are focused on are essential and will move our mission forward. By doing this, we can formulate strong goals for our design projects. This creates something to look back to when you’re in the thick of a project, and you may be questioning why things are happening a certain way.

DL: How do you think being a woman plays into your leadership style?

MF: I’ve noticed a huge benefit in using soft power when approaching problems. I don’t need or necessarily want to be the loudest person in the room to persuade others of my ideas. A lot of my role is aligning design, technology, and business goals with other stakeholders, and I feel most effective when I’m using skills like empathy and emotional intelligence to understand where other people are coming from when they have different views. As a company, we’re all in this together; it’s not about me versus them. My goal is to get everyone emotionally connected to what we’re creating and build excitement from that.

DL: Where is design moving in your industry?

MF: Right now so much of user experience seems to exist only in the digital spectrum. I see it moving more into a physical realm. With so many daily interactions moving into the digital world, real-life, tangible experiences become that much more important. Related to that is the aspect of communities: How do you get a group of people with the same interests into a room together? There’s a huge potential for retail getting more involved with communities in physical space; no one wants an empty storefront.

Turkish officials have told U.S. officials that they have audio recordings and visual evidence that proves Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul, the Postreports.

Khashoggi, who disappeared earlier this month, was critical of the Saudi regime, including Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Turkish officials have said he was killed by the Saudis, but Saudi Arabia has fiercely denied any connections to his disappearance, saying he left the consulate unharmed. Khashoggi reportedly came to the consulate to pick up paperwork relating to his planned marriage, and his fiancee has said she didn’t see him leave the facility.

Meanwhile, Turkish officials are reportedly investigating whether his Apple Watch transmitted any data that could aid in the investigation, Reuters reports.

Senators from both parties have called on the Trump administration to impose sanctions if Saudi Arabia is found to be responsible for Khashoggi’s death, and some prominent businesses have distanced themselves from the regime since his disappearance. So far, the White House has been reluctant to assign blame or to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

“I know they’re talking about different kinds of sanctions, but they’re spending $110 billion on military equipment and on things that create jobs, like jobs and others for this country,” President Trump said Thursday. “I don’t like the concept of stopping an investment of $110 billion into the United States.”

Since its founding in 2010 by three Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute grads, Anki has been at the forefront of realizing our robot-in-the-home reality—through disarmingly adorable toys. The company’s two-year-old Cozmo ($180), a manic little bulldozer bot that drives around and plays simple games, was the best-selling toy, by revenue, on Amazon in the U.S., U.K., and France in 2017, according to analysis by One Click Retail, and helped Anki bring in nearly $100 million in revenue last year. This October, Anki is releasing the $250 Vector. The palm-size bot looks like Cozmo, but inside it’s entirely different. The company spent years imbuing Vector with a humanlike ability to react and engage with both its environment and people. It’s designed for play—and a whole lot more. “We’ve always known that this is not a toy company,” says cofounder and CEO Boris Sofman.

Cartography capability

Using an infrared laser scanner, Vector builds a digital representation of its environment through a process called simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Drop sensors allow it to drive across a tabletop, say, and stop just before the edge. “We want him to be inquisitive, to map his environment,” says Meghan McDowell, Anki’s director of program management.

Processing power

Vector’s brain, a quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 212 chip, allows the bot to run a neural network that’s being trained to understand the world around it; online updates will further deepen its visual intelligence. The big achievement for launch: Vector detects people, even when faces aren’t visible.

A subtle personality

Vector responds to stimulation, such as conversation and eye contact, and picks up on smaller cues: peripheral movement, noises, or lights turning on and off. Anki uses an online natural-language processing service to translate more complex human commands. These inputs feed into an emotional graph that determines how Vector should “feel” in any given situation and allows it to improvise a response.

Hearing aids

Vector has a four-microphone array on top, allowing it to discern the direction of sounds and react to simple voice commands. When connected to Wi-Fi, Vector can display weather information, set a timer, and offer spoken answers to questions like, “What is the capital of Idaho?” In the future, it could be used as a voice control for connected-home devices.

Windows to the soul

Vector’s cartoon eyes, represented on a 184-by-96-pixel screen, appear to scan its surroundings and respond to commands by opening and closing. The robot actually sees via a 720p wide-angle video camera mounted just below the screen. If the bot makes eye contact with a human, it becomes animated, making its signature gibberish sounds or raising its “arms” for a fist-bump.

How many times have you typed notes in a meeting or classroom, only to forget everything the minute you walked out the door? And could something as simple as a typeface solve the problem?

A team of researchers at the RMIT Behavioral Business Lab in Melbourne, Australia, have developed Sans Forgetica, a typeface design that draws on the principles of cognitive science to help users better remember their notes.

Sans Forgetica makes use of the Gestalt law of closure, which happens when an object appears incomplete at first sight. The brain, knowing that there are missing parts, attempts to complete the image, closing the negative space or adding nonexistent parts. You can see how this works in the panda of the WWF logo:

The designers have not published any scientific test to back up their claims, so take this with a grain of salt. But RMIT lecturer and typographer Stephen Banham talks here about how he worked with the public university’s Behavioral Business Lab to “test and refine the typeface to obtain an optimal level of desirable difficulty.” That is: Something not too hard to decode as to slow your learning process down, but not so easy that you forget everything.

Banham’s logic seems solid and inline with what a professor of mine taught me back in the day: “You will memorize better from your own notes than from the book, because your brain will have to spend more time decoding your terrible handwriting.” Give Sans Forgetica a try here for free.

Hurricane Michael slammed into the Florida Panhandle on Wednesday, wreaking havoc on the communities that lay in its path. The Category 4 storm, one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit the continental United States in 50 years, brought heavy winds, rain, and flooding to the Gulf Coast, as well as Georgia, Virginia, and the Carolinas, which are still recovering from Hurricane Florence (climate change, man).

At least 11 people died because of the storm. While the danger from Michael has mostly passed, and it was downgraded to a tropical storm at midnight on Wednesday, the affected communities need help rebuilding.

Here’s how to help, and be sure to give to vetted organizations by checking sites like Charity Navigator:

• Facebook: Facebook is matching $1 million in donations made to Save the Children, which is responding to the needs of children and families in affected areas. All donations made on the crisis page or through the Donate Button on the top of News Feed are eligible.
• Airbnb: Hosts in the hurricane-affected region have signed up to house those in need, including relief workers in the area to help rebuild. Available homes are marked on a map and are free to relief workers and those displaced by the storm from Oct. 8 to Oct. 29. Want to help host hurricane evacuees? Sign up here.
• GoFundMe: GoFundMe has put together a list of verified campaigns here. They have also set up a general relief fund to directly help those affected by Hurricane Michael.
• Florida Urgent Rescue: This Jacksonville, Florida, animal rescue group took in dogs from shelters in Hurricane Michael’s path. To make a donation online, click here.
• Global Giving: The website has established a Hurricane Michael Relief Fund to support local emergency medical workers, providing food, fuel, clean water, hygiene products, and shelter to the affected communities.
• DonorsChoose.org: This charity has created a recovery fund to directly support teachers in classrooms damaged by Michael. Contributions will help teachers support their students and restock classrooms with materials like books, furniture, classroom supplies, and technology.
• Humane Society Naples: This no-kill Florida shelter has been sending out rescue teams to towns affected by the hurricane to save any animals in need. You can donate here to support their efforts.
• Feeding the Gulf Coast: If you’re local, Feeding the Gulf is looking for volunteers to help make sure families in affected areas have plenty of food. They are working in collaboration with Feeding America, Feeding Florida Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD), and other disaster responders to distribute food in areas affected by Hurricane Michael. If you’re not local, make a monetary donation here.
• Florida Disaster Fund: The State of Florida’s official private fund supports communities as they respond to and recover from emergencies. Donate here to share funds that will help in disaster-related response and recovery.
• American Red Cross: You can make donations for victims of Hurricane Michael by visiting the Red Cross website or just texting the word MICHEAL to 90999 to make a $10 donation.
• Americares: Americares is working with partners in the area and deploying an emergency team to provide immediate support for healthcare. Donations are accepted online.
• Habitat for Humanity: The organization that partners with future homeowners to build affordable housing said on its website that it is accepting donations that will be used to respond to families affected by Hurricane Michael “until Habitat for Humanity’s role in meeting the need is met.” Donations can be made online here.
• The American Kidney Fund: This organization helps to make sure that one disaster doesn’t lead to another. They help fund transportation expenses to dialysis treatment, replace lost medications, and can help with temporary housing. Donate here.
• International Medical Corps: This groups says it has sent teams of doctors and nurses to Florida at the request of the state’s Department of Health. Help them in their mission by donating here.
• One Blood: Have a pint to spare? This nonprofit, which serves Florida and most of the Southeast, is encouraging people to donate blood to help in disaster response. Details here.

The first Thanksgiving after Donald Trump was elected president, comedian and actor Ike Barinholtz found himself in a shouting match with his family. It wasn’t until the next morning that he realized everyone involved in the argument actually voted for the same person.

“I was like, if that’s happening at this relatively friendly table, what’s going on at other tables around the country?” Barinholtz says. “And as I started talking to friends of mine and hearing their horror stories, I knew that the landscape of the American holiday table was done as we know it. I knew that there was something scary, very funny, and just kind of absurd about the climate we were all in and how we were getting our news and how we were processing our news and sharing our news with each other. And so I wanted to take that claustrophobic, awkward feeling of being in the house and blow up.”

And blow it up he did.

Barinholtz wrote, directed, and stars in The Oath, a dark comedy that imagines a world where citizens have to sign, yes, an oath swearing their allegiance to the country and its government. It’s a voluntary measure–until it’s not. Barinholtz plays Chris, a far-left liberal going toe-to-toe with everyone around him who’s signing the oath. As one of the last holdouts, Chris and his wife (Tiffany Haddish) find themselves under siege with government agents who just want “to talk.”

Although the plot uses the country’s current climate of extreme polarization as its base, Barinholtz says he had no intention of making a partisan film.

“This is for Americans who are not so dug into their side that they still are tethered to reality. I’m a liberal myself and personally I would love to be able to say that it’s only the far, far right that’s completely disconnected–that’s not really true,” he says. “[The Oath is] for people who want some catharsis and they’re sick of not just the political climate, but the way it’s permeated every aspect of our culture.”

Barinholtz was careful to pull out the nuances of political discourse within families while also showing the flaw in extreme thinking on both sides. His character embodies the blind righteousness some liberals have been accused of, while the government task force agent Mason (Billy Magnussen) is the epitome of alt-right rage. In between that spectrum are characters on both sides looking at the bigger picture. For example, Mason’s partner Peter (John Cho) is a foil to Mason but still part of the government enforcing the catalyst for chaos.

“If it was just two hardcore evil forces from the government that were interchangeable, to me that’s making more of a statement on how the government is completely totalitarian now, which is so not the case,” Barinholtz says. “I’ve got a lot of friends in the government and a lot of them don’t feel that way. They’re people who have been working in the government for a long time and it’s not like Trump takes over and they’re all like, ‘Boom! I’m with him now and this is the way I feel.”

“I think satire is best when it’s very directly about [reality] but one step removed. If you say the name Trump, it’s so loaded that even someone who would maybe see your movie, the minute they hear Trump is the villain–even if they don’t like Trump per se–there’s just fatigue,” Barinholtz says. “This just gives them enough buffer room to let their mind process it. They’re seeing a story with characters they’ve never met before, but it is very connected to what they’re going through in real life.”

What Barinholtz hopes people will walk away with after seeing The Oath is a desire to step out of their tribes for a bit and start a meaningful dialogue.

“If we cut those cords [with people who disagree with us], our bubbles will become smaller and they’ll become thicker,” Barinholtz says. “When people go into those thick bubbles and they become internal emigrés, that’s when the really bad stuff starts happening.”

Next Halloween, cherry- and orange-flavored Skittles will be usurped by flavors with scary-sounding names like Petrifying Citrus Punch, Mummified Melon, Boogeyman Blackberry, Chilling Black Cherry, and Blood Red Berry. While those sound like the desiccated remains of what happens when you buy too much fruit at the farmer’s market, Skittles is turning them into a delicious(?) new treat called Zombie Skittles, Delishreports.

Come 2019, Skittles isn’t just sticking with fun names, though: Sprinkled throughout each bag will be a few candies that will taste like rotting zombies, just the flavor everyone wants to find in their trick-or-treat bag.

No word yet on exactly what these yucky-tasting candies will taste like. We’ll leave it up to your imagination to decide how, exactly, Skittles execs know how to replicate the taste of a rotting zombie.

If pop culture has taught us anything about space travel, it’s that the universe is full of fun, adventure, and possibilities. Peter Quill and Han Solo make it look pretty easy. One thing we don’t see a lot is the mind-meltingly tough math required to actually get off this little blue planet. So in order to find the next generation of engineering talent that will propel our galactic ambitions IRL, the aerospace company Lockheed Martin devised a unique puzzle to serve as a job interview for prospective students. And by puzzle, I mean a 14-foot-tall, gleaming black box that can only be opened by solving one of the world’s most impossible aerospace equations.

Created by Lockheed and agency McCann New York, the equation to get inside the box is actually an exact equation Lockheed Martin engineers had to solve for a real-world satellite mission. The first stop for the box was Virginia Tech, where the winners got inside to see a 360-degree kaleidoscopic ode to the stars and a grand prize of a possible job at Lockheed Martin.

It’s the latest project from McCann that creatively illustrates Lockheed’s work and ambitions in space. In 2016, the company developed the award-winning “Field Trip to Mars,” a group VR experience that took kids on a virtual tour of Mars by outfitting cutting-edge tech to a school bus that made the view out the windows look and feel like the Martian landscape.

Following Virginia Tech, the “Think Inside the Box” challenge will travel to other top engineering universities and recruiting events across the country with new challenges and prizes.

Twitter is famous (or infamous) in San Francisco for getting a generous payroll tax holiday to build its new home in the city. Salesforce, meanwhile, is winning notoriety for volunteering to pay extra taxes to build new homes for residents. Now the cloud software giant’s unshy co-CEO Marc Benioff is challenging Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey–with, of course, a tweet–to propose his own solution. Welcome to the crazy politics of epic wealth and poverty by the Bay.

At issue is Proposition C–a November ballot initiative that would charge San Francisco businesses an extra 0.5% tax on gross receipts over $50 million, raising up to $300 million per year to fund affordable housing construction, rent subsidies, and expanded services and shelters to get people off the streets. Salesforce and Benioff broke ranks with the city’s biggest companies (not all of them tech firms, BTW) by announcing support for the proposition on October 10. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Prop C would add about $10 million to Salesforce’s annual tax bill. In addition, Benioff and Salesforce are spending a combined $2 million to campaign for Prop C.

In contrast, the “Twitter tax break” as it’s known, allowed Twitter and several other qualifying companies, such as Zendesk, to save tens of millions of dollars annually. The tax break expires in 2019, however. So Twitter could face a tax double-whammy if Prop C passes.

Related: Across Silicon Valley, cities may tax big tech to help struggling renters

In a tweet today, Dorsey said that he wants to fight homelessness, but not through the proposed tax–which is also opposed by Mayor London Breed and state Senator Scott Wiener (both generally advocates for affordable housing construction and homeless programs).

That wasn’t enough for Benioff, who challenged Dorsey to then specify what programs he would support. We’ll let you know if Dorsey or other tech titans tweet out their own proposals.

You can read the fireworks for yourself in the embedded thread below.

I want to help fix the homeless problem in SF and California. I don’t believe this (Prop C) is the best way to do it. I support Mayor @LondonBreed and @Scott_Wiener‘s commitment to address this the right way. Mayor Breed was elected to fix this. I trust her. https://t.co/EsxapfDvtI

— jack (@jack) October 12, 2018

Away started off like any other startup: scrappy, and hungry for ways to grow. A big part of our early growth meant saying yes to most of the things that came our way, and that the options for “the best way” were obvious. Now, we’re in a new phase: We’ve built our brand in a way in which the opportunities feel nearly limitless, which means that we’re constantly weighing good options against better ones. Most times, we’re choosing to pursue fewer options altogether.

“Less, but better” isn’t just a commandment of good design (thank you, Dieter Rams)–it’s an operating principle at Away as we evaluate what to do and how to do them. The truth is, if we want to do something well, we can’t do too many of them at once.

Here are three principles we look to follow as we strive to do the right work at the right time.

Figure out what’s essential. Eliminate the rest

In a culture that glamorizes being “busy,” it might feel counterintuitive to narrow your scope of work intentionally. At Away, our success hinges on the quality and authenticity of what we create, so we have to be intentional about what we work on. That means deciding what tasks and projects drive the most significant impact, and focusing our time and effort on those things. We’re also deliberate about not falling into the “busy=productive” trap, and value our team’s output over hours.

You might end the day with fewer items crossed off your to-do list, but you’ll be using your most precious resource–time–on the things you know are driving the business forward in the most meaningful way. It’s this kind of work that will bring you the greatest results, whether you’re an employee or an entrepreneur.

Say no and question instructions when the circumstances call for it

Have you ever been asked to work on a project that you didn’t think was in the company’s best interest? Or attended an hourlong meeting that the attendees could have covered in five minutes over Slack?

Remember, you can choose how you’re spending your time and where you focus your energy at work, no matter where you are in your career. Not all projects and assignments are created equal. Start each day by asking yourself, “Is this the most important thing I can use my time and skills on right now?” If the answer is no, consider whether you can eliminate it, delegate it, or replace it with something with higher impact.

It might be an initiative that isn’t quite aligned with business objectives, or a meeting that wasted an hour of everyone’s time. If you don’t understand why you’re doing something, question it. Work with your boss to figure out whether a task is truly essential. They can offer additional context that will help you understand why it is, or they may reprioritize entirely. If you’re the one who’s managing, empower your team to review their to-do lists often, and make sure that you work with them to ensure that they’re focusing on the highest-impact work on a regular basis.

At Away, we empower anyone on the team to do this—whether you’re a director or an entry-level associate—because we believe that it’s everyone’s responsibility to help decide how we invest our time and effort.

Remember that not all “essential tasks” are important

Even when you’ve narrowed down your to-do list to the essentials and worked with your teammates to ensure you’re all on the same page, you still need to prioritize. After all, your “must-do” tasks will have varying degrees of importance, and they won’t all take the same time to complete.

Consider every project you’re left with after you’ve stripped the nonessentials, and then weigh their value based on their potential for achieving your larger goals. This shift will force you to get comfortable with the fact that you’ll have to say “no” to a few great opportunities.

This can seem daunting to practice, but from experience, the trade-off has been worth it. By empowering our team to say “yes” to only the amazing opportunities–we’ve been able to capitalize on them. This has allowed us to create the space and judgment to determine, together, where we need to go next as a company.

Jen Rubio is the cofounder and chief brand officer of Away.

Over the last three years, Zūm has safely driven more than 500,000 children over 3 million miles—no parents required. The Uber-like service ushers kids ages 5 and up to and from school or to after-school activities, making it easier for busy parents to juggle schedules.

Rides with thoroughly vetted drivers, in thoroughly inspected cars, start at just $8 for carpool rides (per child for a one-way trip) and $16 for a single (non-carpool) ride if your precious angel can’t handle other people’s children. If you can’t make it home from work in time—or really don’t want to sit through another recorder lesson—you can tack on childcare or chaperoning for $6 per 15-minute increment. Check out the price estimator here.

But the company isn’t just for harried parents trying to be in three places at once as they usher one kid to soccer, another to violin, and, you know, hold down a job, too. In the great pursuit of multiple revenue streams, Zūm also partners with school districts to shuttle children around, providing an alternative to school buses. As a result of its partnership with Bay Area schools, it announced today that it has saved the district a whopping $15 million in just 18 months. The company is so popular with parents and schools that its revenue has grown an impressive 300% year over year since 2017.

Zūm also said today that it signed 103 new school district partners in the last year, and has spread its service to Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego. And that sound you hear? It’s the excited squeals of parents across the country jumping up and down, hoping Zūm heads to their city next.

The hackers behind a recent attack on Facebook gained access to information of about 29 million people, the company said Friday, and that’s just the beginning.

For 14 million people, they grabbed profile data, including:

• gender
• religion
• hometown
• education
• employer
• device types
• the most recent 10 places they were tagged in or checked themselves into
• 15 most recent searches
• contact information including email addresses and phone numbers

For another 15 million, they accessed only names and contact information.

The hackers also grabbed digital tokens letting them impersonate another 1 million users, but didn’t actually get any information about them, according to a Facebook blog post. All of those tokens have since been invalidated.

Users can check on Facebook’s site to see what information was stolen, if any, from their accounts. The company advises affected users to watch out for scammy emails or phone calls potentially using the information obtained from Facebook.

The company continues to investigate and says it hasn’t “ruled out the possibility of smaller-scale attacks” on the site.

“As we look for other ways the people behind this attack used Facebook, as well as the possibility of smaller-scale attacks, we’ll continue to cooperate with the FBI, the US Federal Trade Commission, Irish Data Protection Commission, and other authorities,” according to the company.

Separately, Facebook said Thursday it had disabled dozens of accounts and profiles linked to Russian data firm SocialDataHub for unauthorized data collection, Reutersreports.

Several years ago, Kirk Posmantur, the founder of branding agency Axcess Worldwide, had an unsettling meeting with his cardiologist. “He told me, ‘Kirk you’ve got to drop about 20 pounds and eat more turkey burgers,'” he says.

That’s because turkey is an under-appreciated lean meat. It’s high in protein and lower in saturated fat and cholesterol than beef, pork, or even chicken. The problem: Most farmers only raise the big birds around Thanksgiving, meaning that most of what you can find in the store is either ground turkey meat or processed sliced turkey cold cuts.

So, in late August, Posmantur turned his quest for more turkey into a business, joining with two major players in the food world–clean meat icon George Faison, and James Beard award-winning chef Michel Nischan–to launch The Great American Turkey Company, which sells turkey cutlets, strips, sausages, bratwursts, and hotdogs at more than 160 Fresh Market stores around the country. That footprint nearly doubles this month, with Price Chopper agreeing to carry the products in many stores, along with grocery delivery service Fresh Direct.

After all, he says, the meat itself has a more beef-like quality—it’s denser and slightly chewier than chicken, although with a fairly mild taste. The average bird is about 60% white meat, and 40% dark. At GATC, the white meat becomes cutlets, while the dark meat goes into sausages.

Nischan, who has been cooking healthfully since at least the late ’90s when he opened Heartbeat, a New York City hotel restaurant featuring no processed ingredients, helped develop the company’s recipes, which include four different cutlet marinades and six sausage styles.

Faison says that Americans typically eat about eight times as much chicken as turkey. By the company’s estimate, that equates to 160 pounds of the former each year, an average of about three pounds per week. At the same time, commercial turkeys end up about five times bigger than chickens, weighing between 25 and 30 pounds. That means the animals require different hatcheries and slaughterhouse operations, so those facilities often run below capacity until the holiday season, when about 70% of all sales occur.

As Posmantur sees it, the brand can provide a healthier meat alternative for anyone “from soccer moms to millennials.” If they can afford it. The cutlets and sausages retail at a mid-level price range of about $7.99 and $6.99 per 12-ounce package, respectively, quite a bit more than chicken. To try to redeem themselves slightly for their higher prices, GATC has committed to improving food equity in a different way by sharing profits with Wholesome Wave, a nonprofit that Nischan founded. Wholesome Wave assists community groups in doubling SNAP benefits and supporting vegetable prescription programs for people without access to affordable healthy food.

GATC initially promised $25,000 of its end-of-year sales to the group. It hopes to at least double that commitment in the coming year, and continue to give more as sales grow. For comparison, Wholesome Wave has a budget of about $6 million annually, much of which is provided though foundation grants and corporate donations. But eventually this sort of recurring revenue could make a big difference for the organization–and stretch the turkey provider’s healthy halo even more.