Billionaire Warren Buffett warned shareholders Monday that many companies will fare better than his Berkshire Hathaway in the decades ahead because of its massive size, though others might say the company’s prospects will dim because Father Time is catching up with the 95-year-old icon who plans to step down as CEO in January.
Buffett reflected on life and his health in a new letter to shareholders where he announced $1.3 billion in new charitable gifts to the four family foundations run by his children thatalong with the Gates Foundationhave been helping steadily give away his fortune since 2006.
Berkshire is known for consistently outperforming the stock market during the past 60 years under Buffettwhich helped earn him legions of fansalthough that has become harder to do in recent years because of the huge size of the conglomerate. Berkshire owns Geico insurance, BNSF railroad, several large utilities, and a diverse assortment of manufacturing and retail businesses, including such well-known brands as Dairy Queen, See’s Candy, and Helzberg Diamonds. But Buffett also reassured shareholders that he remains confident in his successor.
Buffett promised to keep in touch with shareholders through Thanksgiving letters in the future, but he confirmed that next year, Greg Abel will take over Buffett’s famous yearly letter and answer all the questions at the annual meeting after he becomes CEO in January. Buffett will remain chairman.
Buffett said that through dumb luck, I drew a ridiculously long straw at birth by being born in Omaha, Nebraska, where he met many lifelong friendsincluding several who helped shape Berkshire’s fortuneand both his wives after attending public schools. He said he has been fortunate to have his life saved three times by doctors who lived nearby while managing to avoid the kind of calamities that often cut life short.
Buffett recounted spending several weeks in the hospital after having his appendix out as a child, where he turned to fingerprinting all the nuns who were taking care of him just in case they turned to a life of crime later. Buffett previously battled prostate cancer in 2012, but that wasn’t considered life-threatening.
Those who reach old age need a huge dose of good luck, daily escaping banana peels, natural disasters, drunk or distracted drivers, lightning strikes, you name it, he wrote.
But now, after decades of benefiting from the fickle nature of Lady Luck, Buffett said, “Father Time, to the contrary, now finds me more interesting as I age. And he is undefeated; for him, everyone ends up on his score card as wins.
Buffett said he is moving slowly and now has increasing difficulty reading, but he continues to go into the office five days a week to hunt for useful business ideas or deals that could benefit Berkshire.
Berkshire shareholders should have faith in Abel because Buffett said he has consistently met the high expectations he has for him. He understands many of our businesses and personnel far better than I now do, and he is a very fast learner about matters many CEOs dont even consider. I cant think of a CEO, a management consultant, an academic, a member of government you name it that I would select over Greg to handle your savings and mine, Buffett wrote.
Berkshires fortress-like balance sheet, highlighted by the $382 billion cash it holds, ensures the company is unlikely to encounter a devastating disaster, and Buffett said the board remains conscientious of shareholders interests, but still the company will have trouble outperforming.
In aggregate, Berkshires businesses have moderately better-than-average prospects, led by a few non-correlated and sizable gems. However, a decade or two from now, there will be many companies that have done better than Berkshire; our size takes its toll, Buffett said.
Josh Funk, AP business writer
Hormone-based drugs used to treat hot flashes and other menopause symptoms will no longer carry a bold warning label about stroke, heart attack, dementia, and other serious risks, the Food and Drug Administration announced Monday.
U.S. health officials said they will remove the boxed warning from more than 20 pills, patches, and creams containing hormones like estrogen and progestin, which are approved to ease disruptive symptoms like night sweats.
The change has been supported by some doctorsincluding FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who has called the current label outdated and unnecessary. But some doctors worried that the process, which led to the decision, was flawed.
Health officials explained the move by pointing to studies suggesting hormone therapy has few risks when started before age 60 and within 10 years of menopause symptoms.
Were challenging outdated thinking and recommitting to evidence-based medicine that empowers rather than restricts, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in introducing the update.
The 22-year-old FDA warning advised doctors that hormone therapy increases the risk of blood clots, heart problems, and other health issues, citing data from an influential study published more than 20 years ago.
Many doctorsand pharmaceutical companieshave called for removing or revising the label, which they say discourages prescriptions and scares off women who could benefit.
Dr. Steven Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the warnings have created a lot of hesitancy among patients.
I can spend 30 minutes counseling someone about hormone-replacement therapytell them everythingbut when they fill the prescription and see that warning, they just get scared, Fleischman said.
Other experts have opposed making changes to the label without a careful, transparent process. They say the FDA should have convened its independent advisers to publicly consider any revisions.
Debate over the health benefits of hormone therapy continues
Medical guidelines generally recommend the drugs for a limited duration in younger women going through menopause who dont have complicating risks, such as breast cancer. FDAs updated prescribing information mostly matches that approach.
But Makary and some other doctors have suggested that hormone therapys benefits can go far beyond managing uncomfortable mid-life symptoms. Before becoming FDA commissioner, Makary dedicated a chapter of his most recent book to extolling the overall benefits of hormone therapy and criticizing doctors unwilling to prescribe it.
On Monday, he reiterated that viewpoint, citing figures suggesting hormone-therapy reduces heart disease, Alzheimers, and other age-related conditions.
With few exceptions, there may be no other medication in the modern era that can improve the health outcomes of women at a population level more than hormone replacement therapy,” Makary told reporters.
The veracity of those benefits remains the subject of ongoing research and debate including among the experts whose work led to the original warning.
Dr. JoAnn Manson of Harvard Medical School said the evidence for overall health benefits is not as conclusive or definitive as what Makary described. Still, removing the warning is a good step because it could lead to physicians and patients making more personalized decisions, she said.
The black box is really one size fits all. It scares everyone away, Manson said. Without the black box warning, there may be more focus on the actual findings, how they differ by age and underlying health factors.
Hormone therapy was once the norm for American women
In the 1990s, more than 1 in 4 U.S. women took estrogen alone or in combination with progestin on the assumption thatin addition to treating menopauseit would reduce rates of heart disease, dementia, and other issues.
But a landmark study of more than 26,000 women challenged that idea, linking two different types of hormone pills to higher rates of stroke, blood clots, breast cancer and other serious risks. After the initial findings were published in 2002, prescriptions plummeted among women of all age groups, including younger menopausal women.
Since then, all estrogen drugs have carried the FDAs boxed warningthe most serious type.
That study was misrepresented and created a fear machine that lingers to this day, Makary said.
Continuing analysis has shown a more nuanced picture of the risks.
A new analysis of the 2002 data published in September found that women in their 50s taking estrogen-based drugs faced no increased risk of heart problems, whereas women in their 70s did. The data was unclear for women in their 60s, and the authors advised caution.
Additionally, many newer forms of the drugs have been introduced since the early 2000s, including vaginal creams and tablets that deliver lower hormone doses than pills, patches, and other drugs that circulate throughout the bloodstream.
The original language contained in the boxed warning will still be available to prescribers, but it will appear lower down on the label. The drugs will retain a boxed warning that women who have not had a hysterectomy should receive a combination of estrogen-progestin due to risks of cancer in the lining of the uterus.
FDA sidestepped its usual public process in reviewing warning
Rather than convening one of FDA’s standing advisory committees on womens health or drug safety, Makary earlier this year invited a dozen doctors and researchers who overwhelmingly supported the health benefits of hormone-replacement drugs.
Many of the panelists at the July meeting consult for drugmakers or prescribe the medications in their private practices. Two of the experts also spoke at Monday’s FDA news conference.
Asked Monday why the FDA didn’t convene a formal advisory panel on the issue, Makary said such meetings are bureaucratic, long, often conflicted and very expensive.
Diana Zuckerman of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, which analyzes medical research, accused Makary of undermining the FDAs credibility by announcing the change rather than having scientists scrutinize the research at an FDA scientific meeting.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Matthew Perrone, AP health writer
The Senate was drawing closer to a vote on legislation to end the shutdown on Monday after a small group of Senate Democrats broke a 40-day stalemate late Sunday evening and voted with Republicans to move forward with reopening the government.
It is unclear when the Senate will hold final votes on the bill, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he hopes passage will take hours, not days.”
The American people have suffered for long enough. Lets not pointlessly drag this bill out, he said as the Senate opened on Monday morning.
The legislation would still need to clear the House before the government could reopen. Speaker Mike Johnson urged lawmakers to start returning to Washington right now,” given travel delays, but he said he would issue an official notice for the House’s return once the Senate passes the legislation.
We have to do this as quickly as possible,” Johnson said at a news conference. He has kept the House out of session since mid-September, when the House passed a bill to continue government funding.
After weeks of negotiations, the moderate Senate Democrats agreed to reopen the government without a guaranteed extension of healthcare subsidies, angering many in their caucus who have demanded that Republicans negotiate with them on the Affordable Care Act tax credits that expire January 1. Thune (R-SD) promised a mid-December vote on the subsidies, but there was no guarantee of success.
The final vote was 60-40. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York voted against moving ahead with the package, along with all but eight of his Democratic colleagues.
We will not give up the fight, Schumer said, adding that Democrats have now sounded the alarm on healthcare.
Still, an end to the shutdown could still be days away if any senators object and drag out the process. Thune was still working out concerns within his Republican conference about individual provisions in the underlying spending bills.
One of those Republicans, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, had threatened to object to a provision championed by his home state colleague, former GOP leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, to prevent the sale of some hemp-based products. Paul said he was seeking an amendment to strip the language before a final vote.
President Donald Trump has not said whether he will sign the package, but told reporters at the White House Sunday evening that it looks like were getting close to the shutdown ending.
5 Democrats switch votes
A group of three former governorsNew Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan, and Independent Sen. Angus King of Mainebroke the six-week stalemate on Sunday when they agreed to vote to advance three bipartisan annual spending bills and extend the rest of government funding until late January.
The legislation includes a reversal of the mass firings of federal workers by the Trump administration since the shutdown began on October 1. It also protects federal workers against further layoffs through January and guarantees they are paid once the shutdown is over.
In addition to Shaheen, King, and Hassan, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, home to tens of thousands of federal workers, also voted in favor of moving forward on the agreement. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, and Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen also voted yes.
The moderates had expected a larger number of Democrats to vote with them, as 10 to 12 Democratic senators had been part of the negotiations. But in the end, only five switched their votesthe exact number that Republicans needed. King, Cortez Masto, and Fetterman had already been voting to open the government since October 1.
The agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of the governmentfood aid, veterans programs, and the legislative branch, among other things.
Democrats call the vote a mistake
Schumer, who received blowback from his party in March when he voted to keep the government open, said he could not in good faith support it after meeting with his caucus for more than two hours on Sunday.
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, said giving up the fight was a horrific mistake. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) agreed, saying that voters who overwhelmingly supported Democrats in last week’s elections were urging them to “hold firm.
House Democrats swiftly criticized the Senate.
Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said a deal that doesnt reduce healthcare costs is a betrayal of millions of Americans who are counting on Democrats to fight.
Others gave Schumer a nod of support. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries had criticized Schumer in March after his vote to keep the government open. But he praised the Senate Democratic leader on Monday and expressed support for his leadership throughout the shutdown.
The American people know we are on the right side of this fight, Jeffries said Monday, pointing to Tuesday’s election results.
Healthcare debate ahead
Its unclear whether the two parties would be able to find any common ground on the healthcare subsidies before a promised December vote in the Senate. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has said he will not commit to bringing it up in his chamber.
On Monday, Johnson said House Republicans have always been open to voting to reform what he called the unaffordable care act, but again did not say if they would vote on the subsidies.
Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19-era tax credits as premiums could skyrocket for millions of people, but they also want new limits on who can receive the subsidies and argue that the tax dollars for the plans should be routed through individuals.
Other Republicans, including Trump, have used the debate to renew their yearslong criticism of the law and called for it to be scrapped or overhauled.
By Mary Clare Jalonick and Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press
Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim, Michelle Price, Stephen Groves, and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.
Recently, New York Times opinion columnist Ross Douthat moderated a debate on the Interesting Times podcast between Helen Andrews and Leah Libresco Sargeant, two conservative critics of modern feminism. The podcast received major blowback, starting with (but not ending with) the fact that the original headline of the conversation was “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?” Quickly, after the predictable backlash hit, the headline was changed to “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” But the diversion didn’t help the conversation’s case all that much. While the headline was softened to perhaps dress up the discussion as an urgent political issue, mostly, it felt like intellectualized sexisma debate about women’s rightswhen the real question should be, wait, why are they up for debate anyway?
If you could make it through the whole podcast, good on you. In truth, the question “Did women ruin the workplace?” felt like it was just waiting for Dolly Parton, Lily Tomlin, and Jane Fonda to burst through the office door and tie it to its desk chair.
All About “Wokeness”
Mainly, the debate revolved around wokeness. It started with Andrews, who recently wrote an article called The Great Feminization that criticizes women as being emotional and lacking logic, started talking about “wokeness” at work, and suggested that women are to blame for its presence in the office, noting that “the pathology in our institutions known as wokeness is distinctively feminine and feminized.”
Andrews continued: “And that, in a very literal sense, our institutions have gone woke because there are more women in them than there used to be.”
She also went on to talk about the uptick in sex scandals being reported, and how backward she finds it that we’re “suddenly” expected to “believe all women” regardless of how credible many of them can surely not be. The very boys club argument seemed to suggest that women in the workplace are complaining about innocent flirtations or, men just being men.
For Andrews, the platform felt like a continuation of her article. She also talked about female toxicity, which she explained means things like gossiping, being unable to “deal with conflict directly,” and a host of other dated stereotypes she claimed are female traits.
Sargeant pushed back on Andrews’ rhetoric several times, but she had her own troubling views about women in the workplace, too. Her take seemed to be more about the idea that no one should really expect total fulfillment at work, and if that’s the case, then women really shouldn’t bring their “woke feminism” ideas to work in the first place. “I think we make a mistake in seeing the workplace as the primary space we work out our cultural foibles,” Sergeant explained.
Predictable Outrage
The podcast did genuinely feel like it was better suited for an era when objectifying women at work was totally cool, a lack of DEI (another topic the guests railed into), and policies protecting women simply didn’t exist rather than an era where many are pushing to obliterate women’s rights in the office (and everywhere). Of course, like the overt sexism in even posing the question “Did Women Ruin the Workplace?”, the response has been just as direct.
Almost instantly, the response pieces started circulating, critiquing, not just the host of the podcast, or its guest, but NYT for running such a clearly anti-woman article, which asked whether women ruined the workplace with all of their incessant needs, like to be viewed as equal human beings and all. In a Vanity Fair response piece, journalist Kenneal Patterson pressed that such a question is ludicrous in today’s world, and showcases fear around “the encroachment of liberal feminism in the workplace.” Patterson suggests that women are essentially being coerced into standards of womanhood dictated “by the patriarchy.”
Patterson continued, “Women are losing the rights to their bodies, dignities, and beliefs every day. Starting an article with the headline Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace? does nothing more than appeal to those who try to keep lower-income women oppressed and drive young people into a tradwife future that keeps them caged.”
On X, the podcast is being slammed, too. In a reshare of the article, X user and author Jess Davies wrote, “Dunno, I think the men who created hostile working environments through sexual harassment, sexist behaviours, unfair promotions and being inconsiderate of basic needs like maternity, childcare and womens health ruined the workplace.”Davies added, “But sure, its womens fault for speaking up.”
Who did women ruin the workplace for?
Surely, there may be a ton of people who do believe that women have ruined the workplace simply by being in them and demanding to be respected and treated fairly. So, a better question, perhaps, would be, who did they ruin it for? Surely, not their employers because in many regards, women are killing it at work.
While glaring pay gaps still exist, women are outpacing men in terms of education, they hold an ever-rising share of high paying occupations, and, according to recent findings, are often held to higher standards than men in CEO roles, too.
And while the tradwife trope may be preferred by men and certain groups of women, most modern women want to work. In fact, labor force participation has been rising for young women at the same time it is falling for young men. Women surely may have complicated the workplace for those who are worried about women getting ahead, who fear diversity, or who don’t want the boys club to change. As far as ruining it goes, were still waiting for the case to be made.
Sonder Holdings said on Monday it will wind down its operations and file for bankruptcy one day after Marriott International abruptly announced that it had terminated its licensing agreement with the San Francisco operator of thousands of rental properties.
The one-two punch of news has caused chaos for employees and guests alike. Shares of Sonder have plummeted more than 64% as of mid-day trading on Monday.
In a statement Monday, Sonder said it expects to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquid its U.S. business, in addition to initiating insolvency proceedings in the international countries where it operates.
We are devastated to reach a point where a liquidation is the only viable path forward, said Janice Sears, interim chief executive officer of Sonder. We explored all viable alternatives to avoid this outcome, but we are left with no choice other than to proceed with an immediate wind-down of our operations and liquidation of our assets.
Neither Marriott nor Sonder immediately responded to a request for comment from Fast Company.
Bethesda, Maryland-based Marriott said in a statement on Sunday that its immediate priority is supporting guests currently staying at Sonder properties and those with upcoming reservations and that it would contact guests who booked directly through Marriott channels to address their reservation and booking needs. Marriott remains committed to minimizing disruption to guests travel plans.
EMPLOYEES, GUESTS IN CHAOS
But the experiences of guests and employees alike indicate that this news has been nothing short of chaotic.
On social media platforms including Reddit and LinkedIn, Sonder employees and guests recounted how the news of the termination of the Marriott partnership reached themwith some employees saying they learned their jobs had been terminated from news reports, while guests reported receiving notices that they had to vacate their rental immediately.
One New York-based former Sonder employee, who asked to remain anonymous, said that she and her colleagues extended their shifts on Sunday to try to help guests and were on-site Monday cleaning things out and closing operations for the last time. She added that the now-former employees had no idea what would happen with their paid time off and sick time payouts.
Another Sonder employee declined to comment about the situation amid a few developing scenarios that are currently taking place.
On its website, Sonder said it has approximately 1,400 employees in more than 35 cities in 10 different countries.
Meanwhile, guests have also been thrown into limbo during their stays.
One Reddit user posted Sunday that they had been kicked out of a Sonder hotel mid-stay and weren’t allowed back in the room in the evening. The user didnt immediately respond to a request for an interview from Fast Company, but commented on another subreddit that after waiting on-hold with Marriott customer service for two hours, they had been refunded half of the $2,000 booking, along with a $50 credit for the inconvenience.
Another Redditor posted Monday that the heating has been turned off and that theyve been asked to leave during a winter storm warning in Chicago.
On LinkedIn, a woman shared that she had been staying at a Sonder location in London on Sunday night only to learn of the change from an email and note slipped under her door overnight. What a mess, she wrote.
SONDERS WOES
Financial woes for Sonder appear to have been too great for even a partnership with the worlds largest hotel chain to solve. The Marriott-Sonder partnership was announced in August 2024, and now the two companies are pointing fingers at each other, to some extent.
Sonder has faced severe financial constraints arising from, among other things, prolonged challenges in the integration of the companys systems and booking arrangements with Marriott International, Sears said in the statement.
Both Sonders CEO and CFO had left the company earlier in the year and the company had fallen into a pattern of reporting its earnings reports late.
Sonder is also the latest bankruptcy victim that stems from the frenzy of special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) deals that began about five years ago. These so-called blank check deals saw a number of companies go public, only to later file for bankruptcy, including 23andMe and WeWork. The hotelier went public with a blank-check deal with Gores Metropoulos II in January 2022.
FALLOUT FOR MARRIOTT
Marriott, meanwhile, could emerge from the dissolution of this experimental partnership relatively unscathed.
The company said the termination was due to Sonders default when it announced the news on Sunday. In a separate statement, Marriott scaled back its financial outlook for net room growth in 2025, to roughly 4.5% with the removal of Sonder rooms from its system, down from a prior forecast of approximately 5%.
On Monday, Marriott announced a new agreement with Pacifica Hotels to convert two existing hotels in Osaka, Japan to its line of City Express Hotels by Marriott next year.
Marriott shares fell about 0.2% in mid-day trading. And Jefferies analyst David Katz even upgraded his price target for the stock on Monday to $315, up from $308.
Tesla is getting into the rental car market.
Drivers can now rent a Tesla in two Southern California locationsSan Diego and Costa Mesafor three to seven days, starting at $60 daily, according to Electrek. Tesla will be renting, not leasing its EVs, and plans to continue rolling out additional U.S. locations starting this month.
Fast Company has reached out to Tesla for comment.
The news comes as the electric vehicle (EV) maker looks for new ways to head off further declines in U.S. sales following the expiration of its federal tax credits, and comes amid continued backlash against the company for CEO Elon Musks role in the U.S. government, coupled with growing competition in the EV market.
Those federal EV tax credits of up to $7,500 expired on October 1, after President Donald Trump signed his One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) into law.
Each Tesla rental will include the option for supervised Full Self-Driving and Supercharging, at no extra cost, and as incentive to buy, customers will a receive a $250 credit if they purchase a model within a week, Electrek reported.
Shares of Tesla, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSLA) were trading up over 4% in midday trading on Monday.
Shares of rental car company Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (HTZ) were down nearly 3% at the time of this writing in the aftermath of its recent quarterly earnings report. The car rental giant had purchased a fleet of Teslas to increase its EV offerings, but has been selling them as demand decreased, along with resale value.
The news comes just days after shareholders approved a controversial pay package for CEO Elon Musk worth up to nearly $1 trillion in compensation, and as a head of Tesla’s ailing Cybertruck business announced he was leaving Tesla following the company’s recall of some 63,000 Cybertrucks due to their bright front lights, per the Associated Press.
A look at the numbers shows Tesla’s third quarter earnings missed analyst expectations, even while it reported $28.1 billion in revenue, up 12% from the previous year. Earnings per share (EPS) came in at 50 cents versus an expected 54 cents. The company has reported year-over-year revenue declines the two previous quarters.
Think. Create. Change.
These three verbs are the driving force behind the World Changing Ideas Summit, a first-of-its-kind event created in partnership with Fast Company and Johns Hopkins University (JHU).
This November 19 at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center in Washington, D.C., the World Changing Ideas Summit will convene academics and senior business leaders for a day of immersive, thought-provoking experiences designed to advance Americas innovation ecosystem. From dynamic panels to interactive innovation showcases to hands-on breakout sessions, the World Changing Ideas Summit aims to go beyond dialogue and inspire action.
“The World Changing Ideas Summit is a wholly new kind of event: a partnership between two very different organizations, both known for their commitment to innovation, coming together to explore the near future through the ideas they’re most excited about, says Brendan Vaughan, editor-in-chief of Fast Company.
The World Changing Ideas Summit is modeled after Fast Companys annual World Changing Ideas list, which celebrates the businesses and organizations developing creative solutions to the most pressing issues of our time. Paired with Johns Hopkins University’s renowned history of scientific discoveries, the World Changing Ideas Summit stands as a dynamic partnership between two of the most innovative forces in media and academic research, focusing on transformative advancements in healthcare, space exploration, and physical AI.As we celebrate our 150-year anniversary, Johns Hopkins is doubling down on our commitment to improving lives by bringing the benefits of research to the world, said Cybele Bjorklund executive director of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center. This summit provides a fresh vision and venue to bolster America’s powerful innovation ecosystem, rooted in our drive to forge stronger connections between government, universities and the private sector.”
The World Changing Ideas Summit features a mix of JHU faculty and World Changing Ideas honorees including Akhila Kosaraju, cofounder and CEO of Phare Bio; Jordan Shuff, research engineer at the Johns Hopkins Wilmer Eye Institute; Hongquan Li, cofounder and CEO of Cephla; Dennis Woodfork, mission area executive for National Security Space at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory; and more who will unpack key topics from how to use star-mapping technology to analyze cancerous tumors to examining national security implications in space to how AI-powered predictive models are evolving professional sports, and much more.
With spotlights on how these innovations can strengthen the health, well-being, and flourishing of the world (and beyond), the World Changing Ideas Summit will highlight the full extent of what is possible when government, academia, and business industries join forces.
Visit the World Changing Ideas Summit event page to register for the event and stay up-to-date with the agenda and list of speakers.
Last week, four Condé Nast staffers were abruptly fired after participating in a union protest at the publishers 1 World Trade Center headquarters. The journalists had confronted chief people officer Stan Duncan outside his office, demanding answers on a fresh wave of layoffs that had just hit the company.
The incident followed Condé Nasts announcement that Teen Vogue would be folded into Vogue.com, resulting in multiple layoffs, including Teen Vogues editor-in-chief.
Footage obtained by The Wrap shows Duncan declining to engage with employees, instead repeating that they should go back to the workplace.
In the clip, one of the journalists asks, What counts as congregating? Whats your definition of congregating? while another presses: Is there a place youd be able to speak to us? Do you think were not worth speaking to, Stan? Duncan eventually retreats into an office.
Hours later, Condé Nast fired four union members involved in the incident citing gross misconduct and policy violations. The company also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, accusing the NewsGuild of repeated and egregious disregard of our collective bargaining agreement.
The clip, which The Wrap described as the most brutally awkward thing youll see today, has since garnered over 4 million views on Xwith many weighing in on the state of workplace politics.
And reactions have been fairly mixed.
Critics of the firings accused Condé Nast of union-busting: Just outrageous, shameful behavior from Condé’s head of HR Stan Duncan. You’ve just laid off some of your most respected, beloved, unionized staffand the union reps come to ask questions. You have a professional duty to sit with them. That is literally your job, one X user wrote.
Others defended the companys decision. Easy decision to fire these folks, another wrote.
These folks have a union, so they can simply let their representatives handle their concerns! Bringing a mob of folks to confront HR with cameras rolling?! So entitled, so dumb.
On Reddits r/Layoffs forum, users were similarly divided. Im in HR and people like this give HR a bad reputation. Why would you be scared to talk to employees? one commented.
Another wrote: HR doesnt make layoff business decisions. Curious what their goal was here and why they thought ambushing and filming someone in the workplace was the right thing to do lol.
One simply put: corporate drama at its finest. bet hr had a great day.
In a statement, Condé Nast said: Extreme misconduct is unacceptable in any professional setting. We have a responsibility to provide a workplace where every employee feels respected and able to do their job without harassment or intimidation. We also cannot ignore behavior that crosses the line into targeted harassment and disruption of business operations.
However, union leaders disputed the companys claims, arguing the footage tells a different story.
Managements attempt at union-busting, using intimidation and grossly illegal tactics to try to suppress protected union activity, will not stand, said Susan DeCarava, president of The NewsGuild of New York, in a statement.
The NewsGuild of New York has zero tolerance for bad bosses who harass, target and disrespect our fellow Guild members. We represent nearly 6,000 media workers across the tri-state area and we stand firmly in solidarity, ready to fight for the rights of our members illegally fired from their jobs at Condé.
As the workforce continues to be roiled by layoffs and employer-employee relations more fraught than ever, its unlikely controversies like these will dissipateespecially when someone nearby is filming it with their phone.
Feed Mes Emily Sundberg has launched her first foray into podcasting with Expense Account.
The first episode, out today, features chef and author Alison Roman in conversation with host Jason Lee (formerly Semi Anonymous Restaurant Critic J Lee)s, revealing her secret order at Keens, her new tomato sauce business, and the importance of keeping fresh flowers at home.
Expense Account is a food podcast for everyone. Insiders, outsiders, your mom, your dad, New Yorkers, Angelenos and also people from Florida (we love you). Anyone who enjoys eating food, the shows description reads. Its even for people who hate food.
The podcast marks Sundbergs first step in turning Feed Me from a popular Substack newsletter into a multi-format media brand. Since launching Feed Me in 2022, Sundberg has grown it into one of Substacks most popular business publications, recently bringing on a managing editor and associate editor to expand coverage.
Podcasting is a logical next step. The global podcast industry generated $7.3 billion in sales last year, more than double most estimates, with celebrities, influencers, small businesses, and random dudes with mics launching podcasts daily.
With Substacks new tools for video and podcasting, writers like Sundberg are evolving and embracing the studio model to reach new audiences and position themselves as thought leaders in their industries.
In spite of a highly saturated market, Sundberg believes she has spotted a gap. Theres a white space in food media that Feed Me plans to fill: a good podcast about food, Sundberg wrote back in September, announcing the podcast venture.
Something focused on the fast-paced news cycle of New Yorks hospitality worldthe gossip, secret doors, and personalities that make this the best food city in the world. We hope to build a hub where every lover of food can converge and converse.
While newsletters remain Feed Mes bread and butter, Sundberg has made clear her plans to transition to a studio mindset. Expense Account is born from Lees restaurant column of the same name.
A few months ago, while editing one of Jasons pieces, I paused on a line that read, Ill save that for the pod, wrote Sundberg in her daily newsletter. He didnt have a podcast, but the phrase felt like a manifestation. I texted him: Do you want one? He said yes, so we made one.
For Expense Account, Feed Me is partnering with Public Sound, a New York-based production company that has worked with brands like Nike and Supreme. Substack serves as the presenting sponsor.
Whats next for Feed Me studio? Maybe next year well make a movie, or open a bar, Sundberg wrote. Watch this space.
If you work in an office, chances are good that youre familiar with the slop bowl, TikToks term for the ubiquitous lunch of nine-to-fivers that involves a bunch of ingredients mixed together with a base of salad or rice.
Now, Cava, the fast-casual Mediterranean-inspired restaurant chain, is introducing its first-ever merch line that pays homage to its fans most beloved slop bowl ingredients.
The collection is set to debut on the Cava Shop on Thursday, November 13.
It includes a hat emblazoned with the word Feta, which, according to a press release, is a staple for the MILF (Man, I Love Feta, of course) crew; a T-shirt that doubles as an ode to Cavas extra pickled onions; and a vacation tote thats inspired by the chains hot harissa vinaigrette.
Prices range from $25 to $75.
Cava is far from the first fast-casual restaurant to offer merch, and its not even the first within the subcategory of upscale salad-slash-slop bowl purveyors.
In recent months, other brandslike Sweetgreen and Panerahave used clever merch launches to both cultivate a lifestyle brand aesthetic and to score some extra visibility on social media, especially as lower spending power and high living costs draw young consumers away from their favorite slop bowl haunts.
Why does every salad shop have merch now?
In recent years, some fast-casual restaurants have been increasingly focused on expanding beyond just food to become known as lifestyle brands, or brands that project a certain aesthetic and status through their offerings.
Case in point: Sweetgreens loyalty program, which gives customers early access to merch drops on clothing like a crewneck that simply reads Salad!, or Erewhons $335 monochrome track suit.
Beyond giving a brand a certain cool factor, creative merch drops can also serve as excellent fodder for social media engagementsomething Panera discovered with its viral BAGuette bag, which sold out twice in a row after going viral on TikTok.
According to Andy Rebhun, Cavas chief marketing and experience officer, fans of the brand have been asking for merch for yearsbut this launch makes perfect sense for where the industry is today.
Food brands, especially those in the fast-casual space, have evolved far beyond being just a place to eat, he says. Theyve become part of peoples daily rituals, their culture, and even their identity. For many guests, the bowl they build is a reflection of their taste, their lifestyle, and what they value, and now they can wear that connection, too.
[Photo: Cava]
Cavas new collection balances trendiness with a dash of humor that feels especially designed to appeal to the young, social media savvy crowd. Each piece is made in a desirable silhouettelike a retro-inspired crewneckbut with a silly element, like the word Skhug (for one of Cavas popular sauces) added on top.
We wanted to maintain the authenticity of what makes Cava unique (the flavor elements and the playful nature) while designing pieces that people will actually want to wear in their everyday lives, whether thats lounging at home, running errands, or traveling, Rebhun explains, adding that the brands playful personality shines through in the line. We lean into the natural zeitgeist around our brand with phrases like Extra Pickled Onions and our MILF Crew Man, I Love FETA callout, but the designs come through feeling clever, not gimmicky.
Fast-casual restaurants face declining sales among young people
Cavas new merch shop comes at a tricky moment for fast-casual slop bowl purveyors.
On an October 29 earnings call, Scott Boatwright, CEO of Chipotle Mexican Grill, said that customers aged 25 to 35 are visiting the chain less as they face unemployment, increased student loan repayment, and slower real wage growth.”
And on November 4, Cava Group cut its full-year forecast for the second quarter in a row. It cited 15% fewer visits from the 25- to 35-year-old group, which makes up 30% of its total consumer base, as one reason behind the decision.
Cavas revenue in the third quarter was up 20% compared to the same period last year, but its stock (NYSE: CAVA) is currently down almost 67% year-over-year. At the same time, Chipotle stock (NYSE: CMG) is also down almost 49%, while Sweetgreen is down more than 86%.
When you look at different age demographics of fast-casual, the 25- to 34-year-old consumer seems to be impacted a bit more than others, Cava CFO Tricia Tolivar told CNBC in an interview. Fast casual tends to have a higher concentration of those consumers within their guest portfolio.
Gen Zers and millennials may be cutting out their daily slop bowl, but with Cavas new merch launch, at least they can literally wear their love of feta on their sleeves.
