Late last night, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a new legal opinion that goes against an earlier one from 2011. The opinion says a law called the Wire Act–which prohibits any type of betting that uses wire communication to transmit information–applies to all forms of betting and not just sports betting. The 2011 opinion had originally said the law’s purview was only for sports betting.

It may seem like a piece of legislative minutiae, but this revised opinion will likely have serious ramifications for burgeoning online betting programs. While there are already a bunch of laws that make most forms of online gambling illegal, programs that are currently kosher have not had to conform to the Wire Act. Now that they do, this could seriously hinder their legality.

This move by the DOJ has long been lobbied for by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who owns the casino company Las Vegas Sands. Adelson has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobbying firms that push for legal restrictions like this one, according to the Washington Post.

The Post, however, adds that it’s still unclear how this new decision will be implemented. Anonymous DOJ sources told the newspaper that “it doesn’t mean that large swaths of gambling that were once legal are now illegal and vice versa.” Still, online betting companies have reason to be worried–this decision is certainly an attempt to shut them down. Not only that, but the opinion illustrates the pull that casino magnates like Adelson have with the current administration.

We won’t know the impact right away: The DOJ says it will not enforce this new interpretation for 90 days, in order to allow betting programs to comply with the new regulation.

In 2016, Ikea teamed up with the British designer Tom Dixon and design students at Parsons to develop the Delaktig “hackable” sofa–an aluminum daybed with swappable modular components like side tables. The big idea was to rethink the sofa as a full-out “seating platform,” just like apps ever-modify a smartphone to do something new.

Now, Ikea is doubling down on the idea. With Dixon, it’s releasing a Delaktig bed available this March. Coming in one size only–queen–it’s constructed from the same, extruded aluminum frame that we’ve seen in the Delaktig sofa.

You can integrate side tables and lamps–just as you could with the sofa. But the more appealing, bed-specific bit is that you can swap headboards relatively easily. It appears you just slide the board into a notch and secure it with three fasteners. Dixon designed the first wave of headboards in both black wood and rattan, which offer the same bed frame in a vastly different look.

As with all customizable furniture, the pricing gets confusing, quick. The bed starts at $429, which includes the frame and two side tables. For $449, you get a headboard, but no side tables. For the frame, headboard, and side tables, it jumps to $549. (From the press materials, it does not appear that you can buy the frame without any accessories whatsoever–but then again, that would be beside the point.)

Whether you’re interested in the Delaktig bed or not, the product serves as a fascinating portrait of Ikea’s evolving strategy to be more than a big-box, flat-pack furniture giant. In this case, the aluminum Delaktig should be anything but a one-size-fits-all disposable product developed in some Scandinavian bunker. It’s a bed crafted by Ikea outsiders–made to both be constructed to your tastes, and evolve alongside them.

No one wants to end up in a situation where they are arguing with a cop over unlocking a phone. However, if you do find yourself in such a situation, there’s something you should know: Cops can’t force people to unlock a mobile phone with their face or finger.

At least according to a potentially landmark ruling by a California judge, which was uncovered by Forbes.

The ruling, from Judge Kandis Westmore of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, came from a case involving attempted blackmail over a video on a Facebook account. To catch the criminals, the cops wanted to raid a property and unlock any phone on the premises via facial recognition, a fingerprint, or an iris scan, but the judge said no, holding that requiring a suspect to unlock their own phone would violate their right against self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amandment.

The decision shakes up precedent where U.S. judges had ruled that police were allowed to force unlock devices like Apple’s iPhone with biometrics, such as fingerprints, faces, or irises. It was an odd rule, because a majority of judges had also held that cops weren’t permitted to force a suspect to divulge passcodes, because they are considered to be “testimonial.” The idea is that you can’t require a person to give information (in this case, a passcode) that could be used to incriminate them.

However, biometrics were treated different under the law, like a breathalyzer test or a DNA swab, because they didn’t require a person to say or do anything, per se. (This article on LawFareBlog has a lot more on the subject.) Judge Westmore noted in the ruling that “technology is outpacing the law,” and that biometrics should be subject to the same standard as passcodes. “If a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device,” the judge wrote.

Once upon a time, President Barack Obama ordered a hamburger with Grey Poupon mustard and the temperamental pundits at Fox News went into full-on meltdown mode. No Gulden’s Spicy Brown for this guy, Hannity et al. emphasized, Little Lord Fauntleroy would prefer a more refined accompaniment for his sandwich!

Although Obama’s successor does not exactly live a populist lifestyle in most regards, his predilection for McDonald’s does project a more man-of-the-people vibe than Obama, as far as burgers are concerned. For someone who professes to love hamburgers so much, though, Donald Trump sure has a funny way of spelling them.

In a since-deleted tweet, the literal President of the United States bragged about treating ACC football champions the Clemson Tigers to a smorgasbord of highway rest stop cuisine–including something called “hamberders.”

The man said “hamberders.” pic.twitter.com/WopVMRo3p6

— Padma Lakshmi (@PadmaLakshmi) January 15, 2019

While Trump has misspelled everything from the word “smoking” to the First Lady’s name, to the point where these typos hardly even register anymore, “hamberders” is particularly egregious. No matter how many TSA agents are calling in sick from working without pay during the government shutdown, directly as a result of Trump’s intransigence over the border wall issue, you sort of have to laugh. Lest anyone have trouble laughing, however, noted sandwich monarch Burger King is here to help.

due to a large order placed yesterday, we're all out of hamberders.
just serving hamburgers today.

— Burger King (@BurgerKing) January 15, 2019

Future historians will have to observe that in early 2019, it was standard operating procedure for global brands to dunk on a president who tweets Game of Thrones memes. Who could have possibly predicted that dystopia would be this goofy?

Building a better lie detector has long been a goal for scientists. Polygraph tests, which effectively measure people’s anxiety, aren’t particularly reliable.

And newer technologies, whether they’re based on artificial intelligence or more sophisticated measurements of bodily changes, have also drawn skepticism from experts.

Part of the trouble is that there’s no standard way to assess whether a particular lie detection technology actually works. Unlike crash tests for cars or computational benchmarks for microchips, there’s no set of tests that can be used on a potential lie detection machine to validate whether it can actually say who’s telling the truth.

Now, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which funds research that could benefit the country’s spy agencies, is looking to change that with a $125,000 open challenge launched this month to find ways to test “credibility assessment” technology.

“Countless studies have tested a variety of credibility assessment techniques and have attempted to use them to rigorously determine when a source and/or a message is credible and, more specifically, when a person is lying or telling the truth,” according to the agency. “Despite the large and lengthy investment in such research, a rigorous set of valid methods that are useful in determining the credibility of a source or their information across different applications remains difficult to achieve.”

Teams or individuals interested in participating have until the end of March to submit their proposed test methodologies. A first set of winners will be announced in May, with finalists competing for top prizes of up to $40,000 in a second phase, with final rankings set to be unveiled in July.

The agency doesn’t have firm plans to use any tests developed in the competition, but a spokesperson tells Fast Company in an email that working solutions could “enable IARPA to explore a range of new solutions to credibility assessment.” IARPA would likely also make a working test procedure available to outside researchers.

The challenge is believed to be the first prize challenge focused on developing ways to test new technology, rather than developing the technology itself.

Is Robert Mueller a hero? It depends on whom you ask, but if you are inclined to see him as an agent in the fight for justice, you may be happy to know you can now purchase the Special Counsel as an action figure.

It’s produced by FCTRY, which already has little $20 plastic figures of Barack Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders. And in case the company’s political leanings were too subtle for you, its plastic version of Donald Trump is called “Evil Trump Action Figure.”

No word yet on whether AOC or Beto action figures are in the works.

It’s been 10 years since office drones working on Manhattan’s West Side looked up from their Excel spreadsheets because a giant freaking airplane had just landed in the Hudson River.

More specifically, it’s been 10 years since Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger was forced to land US Airways Flight 1549 in the river after the engines were knocked out in a rare and very unlucky encounter with a flock of Canada geese. Five minutes after taking off from LaGuardia airport, the Airbus plane hit the geese, narrowly missed hitting the George Washington Bridge, and landed on the river that separates New York and New Jersey. All 155 passengers and crew aboard survived. The geese, not so much.

Sully and his crew were instantly heralded as heroes, as were the captains of the seven NY Waterway ferries, U.S. Coast Guard, and the New York City Fire Department who boated out to the ditched plane, saving the passengers and crew who had filed out and lined up on the plane’s wings.

The anniversary will be marked this week with a reunion of the crew and passengers at the Carolinas Aviation Museum, which CN Traveler notes is next to the airport in Charlotte, North Carolina, the very destination that Flight 1549 was heading to on that fateful day. The plane eventually made it there, as it now resides in the museum.

If you’re not near Charlotte, here are a few ways to relive the miracle:

• Metrocollected some great stories from the rescue teams who helped ferry the passengers back to dry land.
• The New York Post spoke to a survivor of the crash.
• BuzzFeed collected harrowing photos of the crash, which left several people seriously injured.

If you are looking for other ways to mark the occasion, go feed some geese or eat a goose (depending on your feelings about who was at fault), read one of the manybooks on the landing, watch Sully (or read about everything Clint Eastwood got wrong in the film), or just watch Matt Damon’s greatest work ever in this clip from 30 Rock starting at 3:26. (“You know what a great pilot would have done? Not hit the birds. That’s what I do every day–not hit birds. Where’s my ticket to the Grammys?”)

Google’s nonprofit division Google.org has long committed to donating 1% of the company’s total equity and profits to charity. Based on the $1 billion pledge it made in October 2017, the company has focused on causes like education, economic opportunity, and inclusion. Some groups receiving funding just so happen to also make the online world more accessible, informative, and safe for users. This week, Google extended its humanitarian efforts with Google.org Fellowships, a program that allows its own employees to embed for up to six months at nonprofits with special projects that need the help of experts in computer engineering, data analysis, and artificial intelligence.

Its first formal collaboration will be with workplace development organization Goodwill Industries International. Starting January 15, seven Google employees will spend three months at Goodwill offices in different cities. Those workers represent the first of between five and 10 fellowship classes or about 40 to 60 people that will be deployed this year.

The move comes after a successful six-month pilot program that just wrapped with Thorn, a nonprofit that builds technology to fight online child sexual abuse. (Its high-profile cofounders include Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore.) The organization works with over 8,000 law enforcement agents across 30 countries to stop online sex trafficking sales and the spread of child pornography. Over the last four years, Thorn has helped identify 30,000 victims of human trafficking, including 10,000 children.

Google has offered its brainpower to nonprofits in a number of different ways in the past: GoogleServe, an annual monthlong period that encourages employees to participate in community service. Although the exact work time allocated for that effort is unclear, the effort involved 25,000 people and 900 nonprofits in 2018. Most Google.org grants also come with some level of additional volunteer support as groups figure out how best to deploy that money. Last year, Google tested several kinds of immersive programs, including shorter-term embeds of one to four weeks. It discovered that many organizations liked the idea of even longer engagements.

In a way, Google’s fellowships operate similarly to the larger paid time-off program at IBM. In addition to donating large sums of cash and technology to groups working to solve major societal issues, IBM often fields small teams of coders, engineers, and even business development experts for monthlong projects alongside whatever nonprofit, governmental agency, or social entrepreneur has an idea that could use immediate acceleration. (How to make chemotherapy drugs cheaper, more readily available, and easier to administer in sub-Saharan Africa, for instance.) Executives there have found the effort both improves the world and serves as a training ground for nimble future leaders.

All told, the 40 to 60 workers that make up Google’s 2019 class of fellows should contribute 50,000 hours of dedicated employee time at nonprofits this year, and expand to other cause areas like criminal justice and poverty. With stints between three and six months (the two timeframes they’ve shared so far), that’s a doable metric with pretty standard workweeks. While it’s not clear yet how fast the fellows program will grow, the organization wants to expand internationally and eventually include its non-tech workers.

The fellowship at Thorn involved five Googlers, including experts in data visualization, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. That team worked on ways to help law enforcement identify potential trafficking activities faster, in part by looking for patterns among the phone numbers, images, and text of online advertisements.

For Thorn, the partnership builds on an already successful collaboration. Since it launched in 2009, the group has been advised by Google, and received several million dollars in contributions. While it has a strong in-house engineering team, it also has a limited time and resources. “While [Google] gave us a view of a path forward, our engineering team was able to maintain and develop the current products that are in market,” says Thorn CEO Julie Cordua. “[We] never would have had that time to look ahead and say, ‘How could we approach this in an entirely new way?'”

Goodwill, known for its neighborhood stores that collect and and resell used goods, is the largest workforce development nonprofit in the country. In 2017, nearly 39 million people used its job training, educational, financial management, and career advancement services to get ahead or overcome some barrier in their job field. At least 288,000 people who were out of work gained employment, according the the group’s annual report. Goodwill also offers supplemental support services including English classes, transportation assistance, and childcare.

In 2016, Google awarded the group $10 million to continue to expand and optimize its offerings. Included in that was a commitment for Google to provide volunteers that could enhance digital skills training. “They do a lot of work behind the scenes to help people in local communities gain digital literacy,” says Chelsea Seabron, another manager at Google.org.

The Google.org Fellowship, however, has a different mission: Goodwill operates on a federated model, allowing local chapters control over their own programs. That makes it hard to track and replicate what is working elsewhere. “They have lots of local organizations on the ground running programs and collecting data on those programs in sort of a siloed way,” Caruthers says. “So what our fellows will be doing is working with the national headquarters to develop a unified data strategy, so Goodwill can make more informed decisions about what programs are most effective.”

The fellows will be working across a total of 10 pilot cities. One of them is Chris Ackerman, a mid-career data scientist who direct efforts from Goodwill’s headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. Ackerman has spent the last seven years at Google and currently works on educational offerings in its cloud division. He applied for the fellowship because he’s personally passionate about Goodwill’s mission. “In the changing economy, a lot of people are left behind or fall out for various reasons,” he says. Providing them access to new skills and opportunity appeals to him. But re-gearing Goodwill’s own internal operations seems especially important because it can increase the group’s impact for years to come.

To apply for each fellowship, Google employees must complete an internal volunteer profile page, which Google uses to share or recruit for various service opportunities. Each person must complete a questionnaire about why they’re specifically motivated to apply, and what they hope to gain from the field experience. There is also an interview that covers both general and technical questions. The company declined to specify exactly how the final decision gets made.

The fellowship program may potentially improve aid work and build employee loyalty, but Caruthers hopes for one more takeaway. “Our hypothesis is that these experiences will allow Googlers to come back [to work] with this new perspective that will allow them to build better and more inclusive products going forward,” she says.

Although the sample size is limited, it may already be working. At Thorn, Cordua says that exiting fellows expressed “a significant change in their thinking about how technology can positively impact the world.” The new team, fast-paced project, and very human cost of failure puts the average workday in perspective. “I am now more confident approaching harder problems that I would’ve shied away from in the past,” says Julian Bharadwaj, one of the Google fellows that worked at Thorn.

Tragically underrated comedy writer Erma Bombeck once wrote that, “Some of the best fiction writers got their start writing airline menus.”

Most people–and certainly most underrated comedy writers–agree that airline food is bad. Luckily a food delivery app wants to make sure that you never fly hungry again and won’t be tempted to eat whatever it is the airlines are serving. AtYourGate is a food delivery service that will bring you food while you loom around the boarding gate, even though you’re sitting in Row 44. The delivery team doesn’t have to bring your loaded baked potato through security, though, because for better or worse, the app only lets users choose from options within the airport. To use it, just download the app, browse the options, make your selection, and they will run it over to you, usually within 20-30 minutes.

AtYourGate has just announced it is landing in the New York area, making it easier for passengers flying through Newark Liberty International, LaGuardia, and Terminal 7 of John F. Kennedy International to decide whether it’s worth paying someone to bring them an Auntie Anne’s pretzel. (New York and New Jersey airport travelers who download the app qualify for free delivery on their first purchase by entering the promotion code AYGFREE. There is no minimum order requirement.)

The app is still pretty new, with only New York City, San Diego, and Minneapolis St. Paul airports on board, but if it rolls out nationwide, folks traveling through Portland International Airport (hello, Country Cat) or O’Hare (where Rick Bayless has a torta restaurant) may never eat airplane food again.

Understandably, California is very worried about wildfires. Last year, the state suffered its most deadly blaze on record. For Nevada City, a town of 3,100 people right at the edge of the Tahoe National Forest, the concern is especially heightened.

“There is little need to stress how important it is to the safety and well-being of Nevada City citizens and neighboring residents that we reduce the fire load in our surrounding forests and neighborhoods,” the city’s financial director, Loree McCay, wrote in a GoFundMe that’s now trending quickly toward its goal of $30,000.

The fundraiser aims to pool the resources of Nevada City residents to help clear the surrounding forests of brush and reduce the risk of wildfire. And Nevada City wants to do this in both a proven and very cute way: by setting goats loose on the underbrush. Sheep like to eat grass, and goats chomp on low-lying trees and bushes that are a particular cause for concern in high wildfire-risk areas.

According to the GoFundMe (obviously, called Goat Fund Me Nevada City), Nevada City officials have already begun to work with local ranchers on the launch of a prescriptive grazing program. The city owns around 450 acres of forest, and a herd of around 200 ruminants can munch through around an acre of underbrush a day.

Ideally, McCay writes in in the GoFundMe, the city would go after grant funding to finance the herds, but that takes a while to secure. Nevada City hopes to welcome the goats as quickly as possible to have as much cleared before the spring.

As evidenced by the fact that the local herds are already booked up for the rest of the year, prescriptive grazing is an idea that’s growing in popularity. Several other towns in California and across the West have used goat herds to tame flammable vegetation for years, and even Prospect Park in Brooklyn has deployed goats to clear invasive species and make way for native plants.

Judging by the comments in the Goat Fund Me–and how quickly donations are pouring in–people are into the idea. One commenter, Dale Albin, wrote: “I lost my house in Santa Rosa in 2017. I recently donated to the Paradise fire victims. I like the idea of funding goats rather than victims. Go goats!”

At the confirmation hearings on Tuesday of William Barr, Trump’s pick for U.S. attorney general, the nominee said he wants his office to take a closer look at big tech companies like Facebook and Google.

Several committee members, mostly Republicans, raised the issue of the Justice Department’s willingness to investigate the impact of Google’s and Facebook’s dominance on competitiveness in the tech industry. “I would like to weigh in to some of these issues. I’d like to have the antitrust support that effort, to get more involved in reviewing the situation from a competition standpoint,” Barr said.

Barr noted that he didn’t believe breaking up large companies is always the answer to lack of competition in a given market. “I don’t think big is necessarily bad,” Barr said to Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). But he suggested the tech industry and its consumers may be hurt by the dominance of a few players. “I think a lot of people wonder how such huge behemoths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the nose of the antitrust enforcers.”

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) raised the issue of the Facebook 2011 consent decree, which, among other things, requires Facebook to give consumers notice and get their consent before sharing their information beyond their privacy settings. Critics say the Federal Trade Commission has failed to enforce the decree, even as Facebook has been found to have used its members’ data in unauthorized ways numerous times in the last seven years. Unfortunately, Barr declined to comment on the question of whether or not the department under his leadership might pursue the matter.

Hawley tried to get Barr to say whether he believed the big tech platforms tweak their algorithms to affect voter turnout in ways that disadvantage conservative and libertarian candidates. But Barr passed on this question, too, saying only: “I’m not sure what to think about that.”

Barr, who sat on the board of Time Warner until its sale to AT&T closed last year, recused himself from the Department of Justice’s appeal of a federal court ruling allowing that merger to go forward. Barr made $1.73 million in 2018 from the merger, according to a form filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

Committee members also raised questions about the attorney general’s interest in, and willingness to, scrutinize big tech companies’ handling of consumers’ personal data. “I also am interested in the issue of privacy and the question of who owns this data,” the nominee said. “It’s not an area that I’ve studied closely or become an expert in, but I think it’s important for the department to get more involved in these questions.”

After a string of scandalous reports about Facebook’s secret uses of user data, Congress seems more ready than ever to pass a privacy bill giving force of law to a basic set of privacy requirements for tech platforms.

Finally, asked whether he believed Huawei and ZTE could be used by China for theft of intellectual property and espionage, Barr replied: “Yes, my own experience from my old Verizon days says not to use that kind of equipment, even though it may be economically attractive.”

In an East Oakland neighborhood on the verge of gentrification, when an affordable apartment complex went up for sale–and tenants there risked steeply rising rents–Kaiser Permanente, the largest private integrated healthcare system in the U.S., helped put up the money to buy the building and keep rent low.

It’s the first impact investment for the Oakland-based company’s $200 million Thriving Communities Fund, and one of three major projects the company announced today. Along with the nonprofit Enterprise Community Partners, Kaiser created a new joint equity fund called the Housing for Health Fund and supplied the initial funding that let a local nonprofit, the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, purchase the building for $5.2 million. In a second nationwide loan fund, Kaiser and Enterprise are each committing $50 million to create and preserve affordable housing in the markets that Kaiser serves with its integrated system of health insurance, hospitals, doctors, and medical groups. Kaiser also announced plans to find housing for more than 500 people in Oakland who are over 50, homeless, and have at least one chronic health condition.

“We have been learning over the years that homelessness and inadequate housing are major health issues,” says Bechara Choucair, a physician and chief community health officer for Kaiser Permanente. “We know that safe and stable housing is a key determinant for both physical and mental health. And really, without a place to live, it’s pretty much impossible for a person to take care of their basic health needs.”

Over several years, a growing number of hospitals and health care organizations have started taking steps to tackle housing as a means to improve the health of their patients. In Chicago, for example, the University of Illinois Hospital partnered with the nonprofit Center for Housing and Health to help get some of its most vulnerable patients–homeless “super users” who spent an extraordinary amount of time in the ER–into supportive housing. In Columbus, Ohio, Nationwide Children’s Hospital invested in renovating dilapidated housing in its own neighborhood and built new affordable housing. In Northern California, Sutter Health is leading a $30 million campaign to try to end homelessness in three Sacramento-area counties. Hawaii considered (but did not pass) a bill that would let doctors prescribe housing for people who are homeless after seeing huge drops in healthcare costs when it housed some of its homeless population.

Kaiser itself has made several donations to support housing, including $2.27 million to nonprofits in the Pacific Northwest to help find permanent housing for homeless people struggling with mental illness and addiction, more than $4.9 million for programs to support the homeless in Southern California, $4 million to build new housing in Portland, Oregon, and $9 million to help low-income residents in Oakland avoid homelessness.

The company will continue to make donations. But in May 2018, the company announced the creation of the new Thriving Community Fund as a way to address housing stability and homelessness through impact investing as well. The equity fund used to buy the apartment building in Oakland, and the fund used and offer loans in the markets where Kaiser works nationwide, are examples of impact investing that will give both social and financial returns. “It’s part of our overall strategy to make sure that we have the means to keep replenishing the funds to impact more lives,” says Bernard J. Tyson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Permanente.

The scale of the investment is also significant, as is “the willingness of Kaiser to invest that much money in affordable housing,” says Rich Gross, VP and market leader for Enterprise Community Partners in Northern California. “They are really on the forefront of health organizations recognizing the connection between health and affordable housing . . . Kaiser is both a hospital and an insurance company, and that makes a big difference in their recognition of these things.”

The investment in the apartment building is particularly interesting, says Gross, who worked on the equity fund that made the investment. “It’s in an area that’s in the center of displacement and gentrification,” he says. “In Oakland, generally, that’s a major issue. It takes affordable housing–that won’t be, forever–off the speculative market. It’s a piece of a much bigger strategy.” Housing advocates talk about the “three Ps”–protection, such as legal counsel for eviction, production of new housing, and preservation of affordable housing. The new equity fund supports the latter, so apartment buildings aren’t purchased by developers eager to remodel units and re-rent to wealthier residents. The new nationwide loan fund will both preserve affordable housing and create new affordable housing.

The housing crisis is particularly acute in Kaiser’s home city of Oakland, where rents spiked 51% between 2012 and 2017. Between 2015 and 2017, homelessness in the city grew 25%, and 39% in the county as a whole. “If you take an area like California, you have the dilemma right in front of us: On one hand, you have extreme wealth, expensive homes, etc., and on the other hand you have homelessness,” says Tyson. “The question in the 21st century is not to blame anybody, but to say, How do we solve to the greater good that equals a baseline of how we want to see people living in this country? I think we all would argue that we want everybody to be above the baseline of homelessness.”

The company’s goal to house more than 500 people who are currently homeless in Oakland is also audacious. Kaiser worked with a community partner to identify individuals who are particularly vulnerable, and is currently working with community and government partners on the specifics of the plan.

The lessons that the company learns as it works in California can also be applied elsewhere, he says. “We have a great opportunity to connect those dots of lessons learned across our markets, across the country. There are many other organizations that can do the same thing. And so if we can offer ideas about how to do that, working with others, then we can serve a bigger purpose as well.”

New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand effectively threw her hat in the 2020 presidential campaign ring Tuesday with the launch of her presidential exploratory committee.

Gillibrand announced her decision to run on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, saying “I’m going to run for president of the United States because as a young mom, I’m going to fight for other people’s kids as hard as I would fight for my own.”

The people of Iowa–the first state to caucus–won’t have to wait long to get a look at her. She’ll hold an event in Cedar Rapids on Friday night, and make stops in Ames, Des Moines, and Cedar Rapids during the weekend.

Politico reports that Gillibrand has $10.5 million left over from her recent, successful Senate re-election campaign, which should be enough to kickstart her presidential electioneering. She named long-time chief of staff Josh Fassler as her campaign manager last week.

TONIGHT: @SenGillibrand stops by @colbertlateshow to announce that she is forming an exploratory committee to run for President of the United States! #LSSCpic.twitter.com/vPUpF1gs8z

— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) January 15, 2019

Gillibrand joins what will likely to be a large field of Democratic contenders, all vying for the chance to run against likely GOP nominee President Donald Trump–assuming he avoids impeachment or resignation and is renominated–in 2020. Fellow senator Elizabeth Warren announced she has formed an exploratory committee in December, and has already visited Iowa, where she was well received. Other Democrats who may join the race are California senator Kamala Harris, Texas representative Beto O’Rourke, and former VP Joe Biden.

Fast Companynamed Gillibrand to its Most Creative People in Business list in 2018. She’s been an outspoken advocate for women entering politics, and has been active in the #MeToo movement. She spoke about sexism in politics and other issues in a Fast Company interview in 2014 when her book Off the Sidelines: Raise Your Voice, Change the World was published.

“Although the incumbent’s voting record in the House had been moderate, it has been more liberal in the Senate,” saidReal Clear Politics of Gillibrand’s voting record.

Gillibrand was sworn in on January 2009 as the 111th Congress’s youngest member at 42 years old. In November 2012, she was elected to her first six-year Senate term after winning 72% of the vote and 60 out of 62 New York counties. In 2018 she defeated Republican Chele Chiavacci Farley by a comfortable margin to defend her Senate seat.

You’ve probably read stories on how shorter workweeks can improve productivity and boost morale. Companies have experimented with it, and got such great results that some have decided to stick with the practice. Economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technological advancements and economic developments would lead to shorter and shorter working hours. Eventually, we’ll all be working 15-hour workweeks.

But this isn’t happening. Americans are still clocking long hours at work, and while technology has made some things more efficient, it has also imposed additional burdens–like the expectation that employees are contactable (and obliged to respond to messages) 24/7. Would one day off really make a difference?

On this week’s episode of Secrets of the Most Productive People, we spoke to CEO and founder of FlexJobs, Sara Sutton, about the pros and cons of a four-day workweek. She discussed why the four-day workweek might not work for everyone, but why organizations need to be open to a four-day workweek. We’ll also discuss tips on how you can ask your boss for a four-day workweek, in our recently introduced segment titled, “You might want to write this down.”

Three quick tips for requesting a four-day workweek

1. Use data. You wouldn’t go into a salary negotiation without having done your research about what the market salary is, and hopefully some sort of tangible metrics that illustrate why you deserve that pay bump.

Asking for a flexible working arrangement requires the same kind of due diligence. Make the case that it benefits the company, and show how you plan to do the same amount of work in shorter days. You need to lay out your plan of action, and articulate the research that shows how short, focused periods are the way to go.

2. Ask for an experiment. You might not even like working a four-day workweek. Ask your boss to try it for a week or two, and allow them to assess. Sometimes they need to see that you will be just as productive, and if you can show them that, they’re more likely to be open to making that a permanent thing.

3. Push for a compromise. Sometimes no amount of research and numbers can change your boss’s mind. Be prepared to ask for an alternative that let you control your schedule.

You can find the episode on Apple Podcasts, Google Play,  Stitcher, Spotify, RadioPublic, or wherever you get your podcasts. What are your thoughts and experiences with the four-day workweek? Let us know using #FCMostProductive and be sure to subscribe to Secrets of the Most Productive People so you don’t miss an episode.

If pesky trademarks have been stopping you from being a meat-grilling European entrepreneur, then boy do I have some good news for you. The European Union has revoked McDonald’s Big Mac trademark. The European court essentially ruled that McDonald’s was not using its trademark correctly and thus others could begin taking it up. The case stems from the ubiquitous restaurant chain trying to stop an Irish burger joint called Supermac from using its name.

While this is certainly a big win for Supermac, given that it doesn’t have to change its branding, this ruling also means that the Big Mac trademark in Europe is currently null and void. So, if you want to make a French burger option that has the words “big” or “mac” in it, now would be the time. Might I suggest a burger called the “Big ol’ mac a doodle”? It has a ring, no?

Historically, McDonald’s has been extremely litigious with its trademarks. Reutersreports that it has gone after a dentist who offered services called “McDental” and another company who tried to trademark “MACCOFFEE.” Usually, the company is successful in protecting its IP domain, but this time Supermac prevailed.

In a statement to CNBC, McDonald’s said it plans to appeal the decision. “We are disappointed in the EUIPO’s decision and believe this decision did not take into account the substantial evidence submitted by McDonald’s proving use of our BIG MAC mark throughout Europe,” the spokesperson said.

But until that happens, get your butt to Europe and start selling some Big Mac burgers!

Sexy lingerie was so 2018.

It’s one of the reasons Victoria’s Secret is struggling. In the post-#MeToo era, women haven’t been keen on the brand’s oversexualized marketing, which focuses more on the male gaze than on women’s comfort. The brand’s annual fashion show, featuring models in angel’s wings and diamond-encrusted bras, had historically low ratings last year. There have been petitions and full-page ads in the New York Times decrying Victoria’s Secret’s lack of body inclusivity. And all this is having an impact on the brand’s bottom line, earning Victoria’s Secret the name “the Sears of brassieres.”

And yet, somehow, Suzanne Macbale, a former Victoria’s Secret executive, decided that now was the right time to launch her own lingerie brand, LoveSuze, that is even more sexually charged than Victoria’s Secret. Her brand’s conceit is that it only offers one size. How does this work according to the rule of physics, you might ask? Well, the pieces don’t cover a lot. In fact, the bra section only features one bra–which is made of sheer lace–and the two other “garments” (if you can call them that) are nipple covers. The kind a stripper might wear.

Macbale makes the case that the sizing of her products makes them more inclusive. “Our one-size technology and elastic simplifies lingerie, so you can focus on why you’re wearing it in the first place,” she writes in an email. “My goal for the brand is to be accessible to everyone: men, women, transgender men and women, and the entire LGBTQ community.”

She then goes on to explain her approach to sexuality: “There’s nothing wrong with being sexy, but what’s wrong is advertising that there is only one look or one way to be sexy, and that’s not what LoveSuze is about.”

However, when you look at the pieces in the LoveSuze collection, they are very clearly reminiscent of a boudoir, or, more crudely, a strip-show aesthetic. It’s a very narrow vision of sexuality, one that focuses not on the wearer’s comfort, but on the viewer’s pleasure. A nipple cover, after all, provides absolutely no support. It’s entirely there to titillate your partner. In the current climate, these clothes promote a retrograde idea of sexuality.

View this post on Instagram

#sundayfunday before the Monday blues. Total Flirt Gift Set available now at #lovesuze

A post shared by LoveSuze (@lovesuzenyc) on Jan 13, 2019 at 12:02pm PST

Even men’s shaving brand Gillette, which once promoted toxic masculinity, is adjusting its message for this new era. Isn’t it time women’s lingerie brands do the same?

How great would it be if our creative ideas just flowed constantly like water? For most of us, though, we will at some point get stuck in a creative rut; you know that feeling where you’re frustrated, bored, and lacking new and stellar ideas.

A creative rut is often the result of not being stretched or challenged. “A primary human need is to learn and grow,” says Ben Renshaw, author of Purpose: The Extraordinary Benefits of Focusing on What Matters Most. Lacking the opportunity to evolve can leave our creative muscle feeling flabby. To flex your creative side again and get out of your rut, try these six simple strategies.

1. Tap into Your Purpose

Your purpose is your primary source of energy and inspiration. It can also be called your Big Why. Renshaw suggests identifying the times when you’ve felt most satisfied and at your peak performance in order to discover your purpose. Maybe that’s working with children, or a time when you were working on a particular project. Discovering your purpose can help you to light that creative spark inside you.

2. Learn Something New

A creative rut is often caused by feeling bored or stagnant. Learning something new, either by taking a course or watching a Youtube video on a topic unrelated to your work, can help you to dig out of your rut. Take on a challenging project at work to stretch your potential and allow yourself to learn new skills.

3. Make the Decision that You Are Creative

To get out of a creative rut, you need to take action. “You can’t just sit around waiting for your creative juices to kick in, says Renshaw. Get into the mind-set that you are creative. You could state it out loud or write down statements such as “I am a creative person” and “I hear creative ideas.” Repeat these statements, and set your intentions to ignite your creative flow.

4. Adjust Your Surroundings

Redecorating your office space to include visual reminders about the power of creativity can help you to get out of a creative rut. Renshaw speaks of one leader he coached who redecorated his bland office space in vibrant colors and put up a huge sign saying “Make It Happen” to help stimulate creative flow.

5. Schedule Creativity Dates

“Creativity doesn’t just happen. You need to deliberately nurture it by giving your creativity time and space to grow,” says Renshaw. While some people may need solitude to unleash their creativity, others find creative stimulation through interaction with others. Schedule a minimum of one hour a week to have a creative date, either with yourself or with others, depending on how your creative spark gets ignited. If you prefer solitude, take a notebook to a café and try some creative writing or visit a museum to get inspired by art if that triggers your creative muscle. If you’re inspired by others, get together with a group of colleagues or friends with the intention of brainstorming.

6. Get Out of Character

Creativity doesn’t come from doing the same things the same exact way. When we do the same things again and again, boredom can set in and get in the way of your creativity. Think about the things you do the same way every day–your commute to work, how you take your coffee, the time you wake up–and change things up. Get up a half hour earlier, try a different coffee blend, drive a new route to the office. Strike up a conversation with someone you’ve never spoken with before. If you usually listen to pop music, try listening to jazz. Getting a little uncomfortable, even in small ways, can help you to spark your creativity.

Hey, retail executive. It’s very nice of you to suggest I speak with your robot, but no, I’ll pass. It looks like there is a fully functioning human standing in the corner of your shop. Would it really be too much trouble to speak with him instead?

I’ve just spent the morning yelling at my Amazon Echo, waking up my poor husband and baby with my cries of frustration. I was asking Alexa to play the news: I’m not sure why she keeps insisting on sending me a ’90s hit music station. I have no desire to listen to “Livin’ La Vida Loca” and “Thong Song” at 6 a.m. It’s humiliating enough having technical difficulties in the privacy of my own kitchen; I would rather avoid such experiences in public, too, thank you very much.

I’m not the only one who feels like this. In a report that comes as a surprise to absolutely no one but overeager retail execs, 95% of consumers don’t want to talk to a robot when they are shopping, neither online nor in brick-and-mortar stores. And 86% have no desire for other shiny new technologies either, like artificial intelligence and virtual reality. I, for one, don’t want to pop into a store to quickly pick up that alpaca sweater I saw online, only to have some sort of weird headset shoved in my face.

These are just some of the findings that emerged from a study by Oracle that surveyed 1,200 consumers and 400 retail executives across the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. The overarching thrust of the research is that there is a massive disconnect between what the retail industry thinks consumers want, and what we actually want.

Retail executives seem to get very excited about the possibilities of any new technology, as is clear from all of the excitement around events like the National Retail Federation’s annual show, happening right now. The show features all kinds of futuristic in-store technologies like robot mannequins that can scale to your exact size, so that it can try on clothes on your behalf.

I would like to know: Have these executives ever been shopping themselves? Like, as consumers?

If they had, they would realize that we actually have very straightforward needs. If we are going to leave the comfort of our homes to visit a store, we want that store to be well-designed and delightful. We’ve likely already seen the product selection online, so when we show up, we want to find what we are looking for, then test or try on the item quickly. Sometimes, we want to speak to polite, knowledgeable employees; other times, we want to be left alone to browse in peace. (Here again, retail execs get it wrong: 80% of them believe that consumers would feel more welcome if staff interacted with them more, but less than half of consumers agree, and another 28% say they would find this annoying.)

Consumers may be wary of in-store technologies because many promised to make the shopping experience better but, in fact, just added unnecessary complications. Brands boasted about their high-tech smart mirrors several years ago, which allowed you to shop from the inside of your changing room, but they didn’t take off. Customers didn’t want to learn how to use the smart mirrors, and it was easier to just speak to a real, live store assistant.

And yet, retail execs keep waxing lyrical about new in-store tech while their customers show little enthusiasm about them. The vast majority of retail executives believe that AI and VR will increase foot traffic and sales, but 48% of shoppers say these technologies will have zero impact on whether they visit a store, and only 14% say they will make a purchase because of these technologies. This also applies to online technologies like chatbots. Seventy-nine percent of retail execs believe that chatbots are meeting shopper’s needs by providing on-demand customer service, while 66% of consumers disagree, with many respondents noting that chatbots are, in fact, more damaging to the shopping experience than helpful.

This doesn’t bode well for the future of retail. We’ve already seen what happens when retail executives aren’t on the same page as shoppers. Over the past few years, thousands of stores have shuttered, turning malls into graveyards, and forcing many large companies into bankruptcy.

It’s clear that e-commerce has fundamentally changed the brick-and-mortar shopping experience. We no longer need to go to store to physically browse or pick up products. As a result, stores needed to specialize in the things we cannot get online: fantastic ambiance, human expertise, perhaps even a plush seating area and a glass of champagne, so we can discover new products in the most luxurious way possible.

So, retail exec, the data is in: We don’t want your in-store robots. But you could have figured that out just by observing how their customers live and shop. Technology for technology’s sake has never been cool. And especially not now that our homes are packed full of computers, smart devices, and personal assistants. We go to stores because we want to dip our toes back into the real world, not the virtual one.

WeWork is quietly trying to take over . . . everything. As we wrote last week, thanks to a new (financially disappointing) investment from SoftBank, the company has big ambitions to take over nearly every aspect of life–including real estate and education. That real estate is integral to its success, as WeWork needs to lease spaces in order to provide its myriad services. And it turns out that WeWork’s CEO, Adam Neumann, reportedly co-owns some of the very properties the company uses, according to the Wall Street Journal.

This new report, which cites people familiar with the situation, says that Neumann has “made millions of dollars by leasing multiple properties in which he has an ownership stake back to WeWork.” Of course, buying properties to then lease to your company is one way to make additional money, but it’s quite unorthodox, too. Writes the WSJ: “Corporations typically bar executives from similar arrangements, given that companies risk paying too much in rent or leasing buildings they ordinarily wouldn’t.”

And yet Neumann has reportedly done just this. The newspaper claims he co-owns at least two properties–one in Manhattan, another in San Jose. And WeWork has expansion plans for this California space, too, thanks to a new residential service it’s launching. Neumann also reportedly tried to buy a portion of a building WeWork was in the process of leasing in Chicago, but the company’s board raised some concerns.

In our most recent interview with him, Neumann said the company has seen lease prices falling over the last year. Of course, what wasn’t mentioned was that he was likely on both ends of those deals. A WeWork spokesperson provided me with the following statement: “WeWork has a review process in place for related party transactions. Those transactions are reviewed and approved by the board, and they are disclosed to investors.”

You can read the full report here.

In Las Vegas, it was row after row of foreclosed tract homes. In Spain, it was sprawling housing projects that sat empty for years. In Turkey, it’s Burj Al Babas, a development of more than 700 individual “villas,” each styled with identical Gothic ornamentation.

Over the past two decades, Turkey has seen enormous economic growth, helped along by a building boom and major infrastructure projects. But within the past year, the country’s economy has hit a slump, with the real estate market stalling, inflation skyrocketing, and political turmoil emerging around the slowdown. Like the United States, Spain, and other countries that have experienced recessions over the past decade, stalled construction projects have become visual emblems of the broader downturn. In Turkey’s case, one emblem is Burj Al Babas, a development where investors could pick up a villa on a 3,500-square-foot plot of land for between $300,000 and $500,000.

A report from the AFP on the development describes how the $203 million project, which has been underway for a few years and is aimed at foreign investors, is now stalled, in limbo along with other construction projects across the country. The AFP elaborates:

Unfinished and empty housing projects are strewn across the country, testimony to the trouble the construction sector, and the wider economy, now finds itself in. The construction sector has been a driving force of the Turkish economy under the rule of [Turkish president Recep Tayyip] Erdogan, who has overseen growth consistently above the global average since he came to power in 2003. But the sector contracted 5.3 percent on-year in the third quarter of 2018.

“Three out of four companies seeking bankruptcy protection or bankruptcy are construction companies,” said Alper Duman, associate professor at Izmir University of Economics.

The agency’s photos of the project are vivid–at least in part thanks to the unusual mixture of tract home development and fairytale Gothic styling, made even more dramatic thanks to small plots and sheer visual repetition.

It’s a familiar story: A construction sector buoyed by foreign investment and stalled by an inevitable slowdown. The question is whether that slowdown will foment political upheaval in Turkey the way it has in other recent, post-recession countries.