As a community organizer in New York City, Sharifa Khan spends a lot of time visiting food distribution hubs, community gardens, and local shelters. While speaking with community members, she often encounters the same issue: people want to get involved in volunteering, but theyre not sure where to start. So, Khan decided to make a tool to address thatand it couldnt have come at a more important moment.
Dora.nyc, short for Directory of Resources & Aid, is a new website dedicated to compiling New York Citys mutual aid offerings into one easy-to-understand resource. Its designed both for those seeking aidlike food, housing, and immigration servicesas well as those looking for places to offer help.
The website was created through a collaboration between Khan, who runs an organization called Hope Altars; Cornell PhD student Johan Michalove, who builds digital mutual aid tools through a project called Mutua; and the NYC Resource Library, which compiles lists of local mutual aid resources.
[Screenshot: dora.nyc]
The website comes as the government shutdown has led to a pause in the SNAP food aid program, which provides food stamps to about one in eight Americans. This month, millions of low-income Americans have been left without the full benefits that usually help them afford basic necessities. Now that the shutdown has ended, SNAP funding is set to resume, although it’s still unclear how quickly recipients will receive their benefits.
Dora.nyc offers New Yorkers a clearer picture of where aid is availableand, Khan and Michalove say, its a concept that they think other urban areas could replicate.
Asiyah, Community Activist [Photo: Bryce Lacy]
How to use dora.nyc
The dora.nyc pages UI, designed by Michalove, is organized under two main categories: space and time.
On the top of the site is a map of NYCs five boroughs with markers for resources across the city. Resources, in this case, are defined as any kind of aid with a permanent presence in the area. These markers are color-coded by category, like distribution hub, shelter, housing, elder care, community fridge, and more. Users can navigate the map by region and click on any of the markers to learn more about the associated resource.
The bottom half of the map is a calendar, organized Monday through Friday, that lists food distribution events by place and time. This part of the website includes recurring food distribution events, but can also feature one-off pop-ups or services that take place on an irregular schedule.
[Screenshot: dora.nyc]
Like the map, the calendar section is color-coded by region, and users can filter it by their local borough. Michalove also added an AI-powered search feature that lets users enter queries in plain language, like, Where is there food near me or Where can I find a shelter in Brooklyn, to easily find resources that match their needs. Anyone who would like to add a new resource or food distribution time to the website can do so via a set of forms in the top right of the site, which are individually vetted by Khan.
When you’re already stressed about needing access to food, and theres the added stress of figuring out where to go, this can alleviate that one factor, Khan says. That is actually something someone mentioned to me directly. They said, When I was struggling to find distro sites, I wish this tool existed.
Dora.nycs premise may seem simple, but the websites genius is its ability to condense information thats historically been shared more disparately.
[Photo: Bryce Lacy]
Why dora.nyc’s premise makes so much sense
Khan and Michalove have been working on dora.nyc since the summer, but sped up their development process when they heard the news of the SNAP shutdown. The idea initially came when Khan realized that information about food distribution and other mutual aid events was primarily being shared through social media posts or WhatsApp group chatsspaces that some community members, especially older folks, might not have access to.
I think a lot of times, we assume that everyone has the autonomy to put those pieces together, Khan says. That really does neglect a ton of factors that people are facing on a personal basis, like socioeconomic factors that are impacting their capability to go out there and find places to volunteer, for example.
Khan and Michalove pooled both her experience in community organizing and an existing list of resources from NYC Resource Library to build dora.nycs foundational database. Eventually, Khan says, she hopes to use dora.nyc to help different shelters across the city share resources among themselveslike, for example, if one food distribution site ends up with extra food items, those might more easily be sent to another site in need.
[Photo: Bryce Lacy]
So far, Khan has already heard from one site that a visitor found them through the dora.nyc map. Shes also helped several older community members, who may not have access to social media sites like Instagram, to add dora.nyc to their bookmarked websites. Ive shown aunties, specifically my Caribbean aunties, how to use it, and you can see the delight on their faces, Khan says.
Michalove and Khan agree that the model could be replicated in other cities, if local community organizers can establish an adequate vetting process for proposed sites.
When you make the goodwill visible, it gives people a direction toward how they can organize and help, because they see, Oh, there are so many community fridges, maybe I could add one to my neighborhood or do a distro where I’m located. It gives people more of a focus toward how they can contribute.
Theres a new sheriff in Bentonville.
Today, Walmart announced that John Furner will become the companys new CEO and president, effective February 1 next year, succeeding longtime boss Doug McMillon, who is retiring.
McMillon has been at the helm of the retail giant since 2014. Prior to becoming CEO, he led Walmarts international division for four years, after leading Sams Club, a Walmart subsidiary, between 2005 and 2009.
Serving as Walmarts CEO has been a great honor and Im thankful to our Board and the Walton family for the opportunity, McMillon said in a statement Friday.
Why is McMillon retiring?
This is the right time to retire because the companys in such great shape, and John is more than ready to lead this company through another set of transformations, McMillon said in a separate video message, filmed alongside Furner.
Walmarts team also tells Fast Company that previous CEO transitions have followed a similar pattern.
Specifically, they were announced in November and followed a sequence: a successor was named, the transitions started at the end of the year, and the outgoing CEO remained on the board for a period of time in an advisory capacity.
McMillon said he believes the company will be in good hands when Furner takes the reins.
Ive worked with John for more than 20 years. His love for our associates and this company runs deep, McMillon said. Hes uniquely capable of leading the company through this next AI-driven transformation. Hes a merchant, an operator, an innovator, and a builder. I know that our future is bright with his leadership.
A tenure marked by growth and technological change
Walmart has made notable strides under McMillons tenure, including investments in the companys workforce by increasing wages and expanding employee programs, and more recently, embracing AI by partnering with OpenAI to allow new ways for customers to shop and interact with the brand.
It also went under a small but ambitious rebrand this year, the first in decades.
Furner is currently the president and CEO of Walmart U.S., a role hes held since 2019, and is responsible for 1.5 million employees and roughly 4,600 stores.
He started at Walmart as an hourly associate in 1993, working his way up the corporate ladder.
As we enter a new retail era fueled by innovation and AI, our purpose and our people will continue to guide us, Furner said in a statement.
Walmarts stock fell around 3% during premarket trading on Friday after the news was released. Year-to-date, shares are up around 14%, and they’re up 104% over the past five years.
Walmart will is expected to release its latest earnings numbers on November 20.
Baseball and bets go hand-in-hand in the Dominican Republic, where professional athletes, musicians and even legislators go public with their wagers.But for every legal bet in the Caribbean country, officials say there are countless more illegal ones.It’s a widespread, multimillion-dollar industry that has come under scrutiny following U.S. federal indictments of Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz. They are accused of taking bribes from unnamed sports bettors in the Dominican Republic to throw certain pitches and help those bettors win at least $460,000, according to an indictment unsealed Sunday in New York. Ortiz and Clase have both pleaded not guilty.The accusations have dismayed and embarrassed many in the players’ native country.“The case of Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz tarnishes the image of Dominican baseball players,” said José de los Santos, a fan of Dominican and Major League Baseball. “Actions of that nature put Dominican and Latino players in the spotlight.”
The DR has 3,500 registered betting shops, and those are just the legal ones
Sports betting shops are widespread in the Dominican Republic, a country of more than 11 million people where baseball is king.According to data from the Dominican Association of Sports Betting Shops, there are about 3,500 registered businesses, and countless more illegal ones.Quico Tabar, head of the country’s national lottery who was tasked by the president to regulate gambling, recently stated in a public letter that officials have been working for years to regulate betting shops but that “circumstances beyond our control” have not allowed that to happen. He did not elaborate.For Raymond Jiménez, a self-described frequent sports gambler, it’s all the same.He said he chooses the biggest and closest businesses that allow big wagers, regardless of whether they’re legal or not.“I don’t know of any illegal betting shops,” he said.Jiménez said most bets in the Dominican Republic focus on sports including MLB, NBA and NFL games.“I’ve been gambling since 1998, when I was underage,” Jiménez said. “I used to jump the school fence to go into a betting shop at 14 years old. I’ve heard everything, from athletes who sell themselves to gamblers to others who bet against them.”
Gambling persists amid corruption
Legislators in the Dominican Republic are debating a bill that would create a new entity to regulate and oversee gambling and establish penalties for non-compliance.Meanwhile, chatter about the Clase and Ortiz cases continues to dominate the news and social media, as does the case of Oscar Chalas, the Dominican Republic’s former director of casinos and gambling. He reached a plea deal with prosecutors in late October and admitted responsibility in collecting money from illegal betting shops to allow them to keep operating.Chalas told a judge that each illegal shop paid up to $100 a month, but that he didn’t remember the total amount collected because there were “so many” of them. He also claimed that a former treasury minister knew and approved of the scheme, according to local media reports.The pace of legal and illegal gambling is only expected to surge as local teams and fans prepare for the Dominican Republic’s Professional Baseball League final early next year.One of the country’s most famous public bets involving the local league took place earlier this year. Hall of Famer and former Red Sox star David Ortiz offered fans a 1 million peso ($16,000) wager on social media in favor of the team that went on to win the championship he ended up with 15 million pesos ($240,000) on the line. That included a 2 million peso ($32,000) bet with Dominican urban singer Bulin 47, but Ortiz forgave him after winning: “You’re good to those who are poor,” he wrote.
AP MLB: https://apnews.com/hub/MLB
Martín Adames, Associated Press
It should come as a shock to no one: The 2026 Latin Grammy Awards were all about Bad Bunny. The Puerto Rican superstar won album of the year for his landmark release “Debí Tirar Más Fotos.” After thanking his family and all those who worked on the album, he ended his speech with “Puerto Rico, I love you, thank you.”Those are powerful words honoring a record that doubles as a love letter for his island.The artist born Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio was destined to dominate from the jump. He also won the first award of the night, for música urbana album. Halfway through the show, the singer found himself back on stage accepting the música urbana song trophy for “DTmF.” “I never practice my speeches,” he said in Spanish. And then he showed up for a third time: to perform “Weltita” with Chuwi.He wasn’t the only one with reason to celebrate: Song of the year went to Karol G, Andrés Jael Correa Ríos and Édgar Barrera for “Si Antes Te Hubiera Conocido.” And Alejandro Sanz took home record of the year for “Y Ahora Qué?”Live from Sin City, the 26th annual Latin Grammys were both energetic and eclectic. Take Raphael, the 2025 Person of the Year, who launched into an emotive rendition of “Qué Sabe Nadie” and “Mi Gran Noche,” inviting the crowd to sing along.That was after Santana kicked things off specifically, Maluma singing Santana’s 1970 hit “Oye Como Va” with the guitar legend himself.It was just the beginning of a memorable medley, talents of today celebrating Santana Christian Nodal joining in for “Corazón Espinoza” and Grupo Frontera for their 2025 collaboration with the virtuosic musician, “Me Retiro.”Performances hit hard and fast: Aitana brought her dreamy electro-pop, Sanz delivered a medley of “El Vino De Tu Boca” and “Las Guapas,” Rauw Alejandro channeled Puerto Rico in Vegas with “Khé?,” the bachata “Silencio,” “Falsedad” and “Carita Linda.” Then: Danny Lux, Kakalo and Ivan Cornejo brought contemporary Mexicana sounds. Pepe Aguilar followed, with his life-affirming mariachi “El Cihualteco” into “El Fuereo.”Elena Rose slowed things down with “Me Lo Merezco.” Karol G and the legendary Mexican singer Marco Antonio Solís dueted the romantic ballad “Coleccionando Heridas.”Two of the biggest groups in regional Mexican music Grupo Frontera and Fuerza Regida launched into their joint hit, “Me Jalo,” before the latter took over for “Marlboro Rojo.” That’s a cut from their record-breaking 2025 album “111xpantia.” Carín León’s lovely raspy vocal tone carried throughout “Ahí Estabas Tú”; then he was joined by Kacey Musgraves for “Lost in Translation.” Not long after, León took home the trophy in competitive contemporary Mexican album category for “Palabra De To’s (Seca).”Morat brought the pop-rock with “Faltas Tú” and Ca7riel and Paco Amoroso brought a kind of outsider, artistic spirit. Joaquina delivered a full-bodied “Quise Quererte.” Any aspiring artists watching would be wise to take a page out of the Brazilian singer Liniker’s book; “Negona Dos Olhos Terríveis” was one of the night’s most joyful. The same, of course, should be said about norteo band Los Tigres del Norte.The coveted best new artist trophy was handed out to Paloma Morphy.Traditional tropical album went to Gloria Estefan for “Raíces.” Not long afterward, she hit the stage for “La Vecina” and “Chirriqui Chirri,” joined by Nathy Peluso for the latter.Then ranchero/mariachi album went to Christian Nodal for “Quién + Como Yo?”Most of the evening’s awards were handed out during a pre-televised Premiere Ceremony. That included: Bad Bunny’s “Voy A Llevarte Pa Pr” winning for reggaeton performance. Argentinian duo Ca7riel and Paco Amoroso cleaned house then, too: taking home their first Latin Grammys for short and long form music video, alternative song, as well as alternative music album for “Papota,” and pop song for “El dia del amigo.” That’s five wins, making them the most awarded act at the 2025 show.The three-hour award show aired live from Las Vegas’ MGM Grand Garden Arena. It was hosted by the dynamic duo of Maluma and actor, producer and musician Roselyn Sánchez.
This story has been updated to correct that Maluma helped open the Latin Grammys, not Miguel.
Maria Sherman, AP Music Writer
The stock market survived the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with minimal impact. But it tumbled on Thursday, November 13, amid a sell-off of tech stocks as worries about overinflated values and interest rate cuts grew.
Take the S&P 500, which shrank 1.66% to 6,739.49, or the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which went down by 1.65% to 47,457.22both at their lowest in over a month.
It was only the day before that the Dow had surpassed 48,000, reaching a new record high. The Nasdaq composite met a similar fate, dropping 2.29% to its month low of 22,870.36.
Many tech stocks felt the effect. Shares of electric vehicle maker Tesla (Nasdaq:TSLA) dropped 6.64% on Thursday, followed by another 4.78% at one point during after-hours and premarket trading on Friday.
Palantir Technologies (Nasdaq:PLTR), which has been repeatedly pointed to as an example of overinflated value, saw its shares fall 6.53% Thursday and an additional 4.30% in after-hours and premarket trading.
As of yesterdays closing bell, Palantir was still trading 127.61% up in 2025.
Nvidia Corporation, which just became the first company to hit a $5 trillion valuation in late October, also saw its shares (Nasdaq:NVDA) fall. Shares of the AI chip designer closed down 3.58% and, like its fellow tech companies, saw that drop continue through after-hours and premarket trading with a decline of 3.33%.
Nvidias stock had already fallen Tuesday, following the news that Softbank sold its 32 million Nvidia sharesworth $5.8 billionin October.
These drops occurred alongside a decreasing likelihood that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates when it meets on December 9 and 10. According to CME FedWatch, the likelihood for a rate cut reached over 98% a month ago, but sank to 62.9% on Wednesday and 50.1% on Thursday.
Emotional intelligence matters, and not just on a personal level. Research shows developing greater emotional intelligence can lead to higher performance and pay, as well as better professional and personal relationships.
The better you can understand and manage your emotions, and the emotions of people around you, the greater your chances of success.
So how emotionally intelligent are you? You could take an emotional intelligence test.
Or you could just see how you answer the following questions.
Do I ask for advice instead of feedback?
Say youre okay with getting feedback, even when its critical. (Plenty of people who claim they do, really dont.) You may even enjoy getting critical feedback.
But that doesnt mean other people like to give you the feedback you need. Research shows when feedback is requested rather than volunteered, it tends to be too vague. Too fluffy. Too, I dont want to hurt your feelings so Ill just be nice, to be of any real value.
But when you ask for advice? Harvard Business School researchers found that compared to asking for feedback, asking for advice resulted in respondents providing 34% more areas of improvement, and 56% more ways to improve.
In short, emotionally intelligent people realize that asking another person to provide feedback (saying, How did I do?) puts them on the spot.
On the other hand, asking another person for advice (saying, What can (or should) I do?) is flattering. Asking someone for advice implicitly shows you respect their knowledge, skills, experience, etc.
Do that, and two great things happen: you get the input you need, and they feel valued, trusted, and happy to offer guidance they know will help you.
Win-win.
Do I appreciate (even if I dont like) negative feedback?
But what if youre given feedback you didnt request? Thats the farthest thing from fun. No one likes to be told what they can do better. Research shows most people rarely appreciate feedback when its negative. And when they do receive constructive criticism, they rarely use it to improve their performance. (In fact, studies show that within days we tend to totally forget the negative feedback we receive.)
Emotionally intelligent people keep their feelings in check and embraceor at least put asidethe discomfort to find ways to improve. A study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning found that were far more likely to recall evaluative feedback (feedback about something weve already completed) than directive feedback (feedback on how we could improve on a future task.)
Thats why emotionally intelligent people embraceagain, even if they dont enjoycritical feedback. They focus on what it says about the task, not about themselves.
Instead of avoiding feedback that threatens how you currently perceive yourself, use it to improve how you will someday perceive yourself.
Smarter, more skilled, more talented, more inclusive . . . more of whatever you someday hope to be.
Do I often praise other people?
Do you feel you dont receive enough recognition and praise? Science says youre not alone. Two out of three employees surveyed feel they dont receive enough praise, and nearly three-fourths say they receive some form of positive feedback less than once a week.
Clearly that doesnt feel great.
Emotionally intelligent people recognize that what they wantor needis what they can give to people they know. A kind word. A sincere thank-you.
Plenty of people you knowemployees, vendors, customers, friends, family, etc.deserve a kind word. A sincere thank-you.
But you should also recognize people you dont know. A store clerk. A delivery person. A customer service rep. Because praise that is unexpected, like the gift that is given just because, is often even more powerful.
Do I willingly admit my mistakes?
As Daniel Coyle writes in his book The Culture Code, Navy SEAL Dave Cooper feels the most important words a leader can say are, I screwed that up.
While that might sound odd, since conventional wisdom says leaders should project unshakable confidence, and admitting weakness risks creating more weakness, emotionally intelligent people realize strong cultures can only be built when people feel safe enough to tell one another the truth.
Which starts with leaders who admit they arent perfect.
The result is a vulnerability loop: one person allows themself to be vulnerable and admits a mistake or a shortcoming, which allows another person to do the same. In time, that leads to more open exchanges that build trust and drive performance.
It helps people focus on how they can get better, together.
Do I often skip past the small talk?
Say youre at a conference and just meet someone new. Do you whip out the small talk?
Science says you shouldnt. A series of studies published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that the more awkward and uncomfortable a conversation with another person sounded, the more they tended to bond with the other person, and the more they liked the other person.
Participants felt less awkward, more connected, and a lot happir after those conversations than they expected to feel.
Emotionally intelligent people realize that the deeper the conversation, especially with someone they dont know, the more likely they both are to enjoy it.
Keep in mind, deep doesnt have to be too deep. When researchers asked people to come up with what they considered to be deeper questions, the most common were pretty straightforward:
What do you love doing?
What do you regret most?
Where do you see yourself in five years?
As the researchers write, Our research suggests that the person next to you would probably be happier talking about their passions and purpose than the weather or Whats up?’
And so do you.
Investors in Bitcoin are waking up to another bad morning for the worlds preeminent cryptocurrency. As of the time of this writing, the price of one token is down 6.55% in the last 24 hours to just above $95,000 per coin.
It’s a low that Bitcoin has not seen since May.
Todays sell-off continues a monthlong trend in which Bitcoin has now lost about 20% of its value. But whats driving this most recent sell-offs? Two culprits are most likely at play.
Uncertainty of Fed rate cuts
Next month, the Federal Reserve is expected to announce a decision on whether it will change interest rates. The Fed has three options: increase rates, hold rates at current levels, or cut (decrease) rates.
Until recently, Wall Street was pretty bullish about the likelihood that the Fed would cut rates in December.
When the Fed cuts rates, it’s generally seen as beneficial because rate cuts boost liquidity in markets. Increased liquidity generally prompts investors to allocate more to risk assets.
Risk assets include assets like cryptocurrencies and highly volatile stocks (such as AI-adjacent stocks lately).
So a Fed rate cut in December would boost liquidity, likely driving investors toward risk assets, including cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, which would likely rise in price.
But now, as NBC News notes, in recent days, traders think there is only around a 50% chance that the Fed will cut rates in December. At the beginning of November, the majority of traders thought there was a 90% chance the Fed would do so.
This uncertainty over whether the Fed will cut rates in December is likely one of the biggest factors behind Bitcoins fall today.
Selloff of tech and crypto stocks
Bitcoin is generally seen as a risk asset since its price is highly volatile compared to more traditionally stable assets like bonds.
But Bitcoin isnt the only risk asset.
Many tech stocks are seen as risk assetsparticularly ones operating in the AI spacebecause their prices can swing so widely as of late.
And as of the past day, those risky tech assets have been plummeting.
Yesterday alone, the prices of some major tech and AI-adjacent stocks dropped significantly due to both uncertainty about Fed rate cuts and growing fears of an AI bubble. Those drops yesterday included:
Palantir Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: PLTR): down 6.53%
Intel Corporation (Nasdaq: INTC): down 5.23%
Nvidia Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA): down 3.58%
Tesla, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSLA): down 6.64%
Amazon.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN): down 2.71%
Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG): down 2.89%
Meanwhile, those traditional tech stocks werent the only ones getting hit hard yesterday. As noted by CoinCentral, crypto stocks in the mining and trading space also had a pretty bad day, including:
Bitfarms Ltd. (Nasdaq: BITF): down 17.98%
Bitdeer Technologies Group (Nasdaq: BTDR): down 20.3%
Coinbase Global, Inc. (Nasdaq: COIN): down 6.86%
Gemini Space Station, Inc. (Nasdaq: GEMI): down 9.78%
Bullish (NYSE: BLSH): down 9.85%
When investors see risk asset stocks declining sharplyparticularly ones operating in the crypto spaceit may drive an outflow of investment in cryptocurrencies themselves as they seek safer and more stable investment assets to park their money in.
Bitcoin has had a chaotic 2025
Being an investor in Bitcoin has certainly had its highs and lows this year. The token began trading just above $94,000 per coin just after the new year. It got a crypto-friendly Trump administration boost around the time of President Trumps inauguration later that month.
But after trading above six figures for the first few months of the year, Bitcoin took a hit, along with most of the stock market, thanks to President Trumps Liberation Day tariffs, which injected more uncertainty into investors’ minds than they had experienced in a long time.
By April, Bitcoin had fallen to just above $76,000.
However, the crypto recovered nicely since then, steadily rising until it hit an all-time high of over $126,000 in October. But since then, Bitcoin has steadily declined.
And after its recent fall, Bitcoin is now up only about 2.8% for the year.
Hi there, and welcome back to Fast Companys Plugged In.
Last year, I left Twitter gradually, then all at once. Throughout 2024, Elon Musks wildly irresponsible stewardship of his social networkI refuse to call it Xleft me increasingly disengaged. But the role he played in Donald Trumps reelection proved to be my breaking point. As of this week, its been a year since my last tweet.
Now, I cant claim to have abandoned Twitter entirely. Im still lurking, though only sporadically. When my reporting for a story leads me thereits certainly one of the principal places people talk about AII go. Add up all my activity, and it amounts to maybe 2% of the time I once spent on the service. (Strangely enough, when I do check in, my feed is flooded with tweets from Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, whos still in federal prison but seemingly using the platform as an exercise in reputational repair.)
Largely weaning myself off the social network that served as my principal online hangout for more than 15 years has been an unalloyed blessing. Before I stopped tweeting, I felt increasingly embarrassed by my participation in a club led by Musk. The 12 months since then have been his most indefensible to date, from the pointless humanitarian nightmare inflicted by DOGE cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to Grok going Nazi. Being appalled from a distance has been far preferable to tweeting my way through it.
The fact that Im a happy ex-Twitter addict isnt just a moral stance. For all of Musks still-unfulfilled blather about turning Twitter into an everything app, the site is shrinking. Thats true in a literal, daily-active-users sense, where its now at risk of being consistently surpassed by Metas Threads. However, Im thinking more of Twitters cultural relevance. The site that once aspired to be the pulse of the planet is clinging to the residue of what it once was. The tweets still flow, but the spark of life is gone.
Thats not a universally held opinion, of course. If theres a case for staying on Twitter, its the one outlined by The Arguments Jerusalem Desmas in a piece titled, well, The case for staying on Twitter. Calling it the most influential public square we have, she maintains that departing the site for an alternative such as Threads, Bluesky, or Mastodon amounts to deplatforming yourself.
If Twitter were a public square, her argument might be airtight. But public squares arent private enterprises operated to serve their owners interests. Twitter is. Thats true even before you consider Musks whim-based management, which has gamed the conversation in ways that consistently make it worse.
That said, I may have stayed on Twitter as long as I did in part because nothing else out there seemed any closer to being the internets one true forum. Certainly not its most populous rival, Threads: Every time Meta changes its mind about whether it wants to discourage or boost conversations about news and politics, its a reminder that the company is algorithmically shaping the discourse.
One of the lessons Ive learned over the past year is that we dont need a single, defining hub of Twitter-style conversation. Why resign yourself to tolerating Musks vision for social networking when you can assemble your own?
Instead of choosing between Threads, Bluesky, and Mastodon, Ive been posting to all three simultaneously using Openvibe. Im also having fun with two apps that weave Bluesky and Mastodon posts together with items from RSS feeds and other sources: Flipboards Surf and Iconfactorys Tapestry. And sometimes I use two fine single-service third-party apps: Graysky for Bluesky and Icecubes for Mastodon.
My new social network-of-networks is smaller than the one I once had on Twitter, where I peaked at around 95,000 followers. The quality of the conversation is excellent, though, in part because the vast majority of people whose tweets I once cared about are active on the services I use now. And Musk doesnt get to pull any of the levers, though he does pop up as a charactermost recently when Bluesky was awash in glee over Joyce Carol Oates eviscerating him on Twitter.
Its to all the Twitter rivals credit that theyre partaking in the open ecosystem reflected in the various apps Im running. (Bluesky and Mastodon are all in, while Threads is still dipping its toe.) Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on Twitters long-standing policy of preventing people from using the service in any way except via its official apps and website. The services walled-off nature is yet another reason why it feels like its fading away.
I stopped tweeting because I couldnt stand having my online identity wed to Musks any longer. Now Im sorry I didnt divorce myself from his mess earlier. Well never get the lovable Twitter of yore back, but Im too busy enjoying my post-Twitter social networking life to be all that wistful.
Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on fastcompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.
More top tech stories from Fast Company
The secret to phone detoxingHint: You’ve got it in the bag, kiddo. Read More
Creators are suffering from a mental health crisis, new study showsOne in 10 creators in North America reported having suicidal thoughts tied to their work, a rate that’s nearly double the national average. Read More
If AI won’t follow the rules, should the media even try?With AI scraping content and ignoring paywalls, publishers face a brutal choice: play defense, go on offense, or get left behind. Read More
Michael Caine and Matthew McConaughey are getting AI voice clones with ElevenLabsCaine said in a statement that ElevenLabs is ‘using innovation not to replace humanity, but to celebrate it.’ Read More
Why did SoftBank sell off its Nvidia stake?The move underscores CEO Masayoshi Son’s contrasting views of the futures of Nvidia and OpenAI. Read More
Meet your new AI tutorTry new learning modes in ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. Read More
Is there such a thing as being too attractive? For fitness influencers, it turns out there might be.
Contrary to popular belief, new research suggests that being too good-looking can actually be a disadvantage, particularly in the online fitness space.
The study, coauthored by researchers at the University of Dayton and University of Oregon, found that the more attractive the influencer, the lower the engagement they received on their social media posts.
The reason? It all comes down to a sense of relatability, and what researchers have termed the beauty backfire effect.”
In the study, researchers showed 299 U.S. adults mock Instagram posts featuring a highly attractive female fitness influencer, a moderately attractive one, or a text-only control. The halo effect and pretty privilege are both widely studied phenomena where peoples good looks often work to their advantage.
Yet the highly attractive influencer scored lowest on both relatability and engagement. Participants also reported a dip in self-esteem after viewing her post. The moderately attractive influencer, on the other hand, boosted participants confidence.
It makes sense. When attempting to conjure up motivation to get off the sofa and go to the gym, scrolling through posts of rock-hard abs and fit-fluencers barely breaking a sweat can sometimes have the opposite effect.
Researchers also linked this to social comparison theory. We are all guilty of comparing ourselves to others. Sometimes that comparison can be motivating, other times it can be discouraging. If a fitness influencer is too attractive, the body ideal they are selling no longer feels attainable.
In a follow-up study, researchers found that highly attractive female fitness influencers faced stronger backlash than equally attractive men. This backfire effect is also most apparent in the fitness space. When the same experiment was conducted with finance influencers, appearance didnt have as much of an impact.
Relatability is often an influencers most valuable currency. Social media has evolved from overly polished posts and curated feeds to a focus on authenticity. Today, people gravitate toward influencers with day jobs, tuning in to watch them go about their normal lives, rather than mega-influencers partying with celebrities or jet-setting every other week whose lives feels out of reachor out of touch.
The last study backs this up. While the beauty backfire effect can undermine influencers trying to grow their followings, its not unavoidable. If those deemed highly attractive pair their posts with modest captions, talking about their struggles or insecurities, the relatability gap closes. If theyre boastful or adopt self-congratulatory language, the gap widens again.
If you’re having trouble racking up the likes on social media, it could just be that you’re too good-looking.
On July 29, 2025, at 9:45 a.m., Christine Ressy was supposed to be undergoing surgery to remove kidney stones. Instead, Ressy, a 49-year-old hairdresser in New York City, found herself holding back tears in the waiting room of a Manhattan hospital. Unless she paid half of her $10,933 bill prior to surgery, her doctor simply could not operate, she had been told.
Because Ressy was uninsured, she had hoped to receive a cash-pay discount or find some other way to negotiate costs. She wanted to see an itemized receipt after her surgery before paying up, and had prepared a $500 cash deposit. She had done all this on the advice of her most trusted advocate: ChatGPT.
Ressy’s conversations with ChatGPT about the cost of her surgery spanned more than 28,000 words. The platform assured her that she was allowed to push back against medical cost estimates, offering scripts for phone calls and email drafts to send billing departments. In the hospital, Ressy messaged ChatGPT again. “Im crying beyond tears,” she wrote. She was willing to pay, but did not want to do so upfront. The staff is “pressuring me,” she said. What should she do?
“You are not the problem here,” ChatGPT responded, sending Ressy a yellow heart emoji. Ressy was simply a “patient asking to be treated fairly,” the AI platform said. “They are pressuring you at your most vulnerableand that is wrong.”
Ressy went to the check-in desk and repeated a new ChatGPT script: This time, she wanted documentation that she had, as instructed, arrived two hours early for surgery, had offered a good faith deposit, and that the hospital would not be admitting her. One of the medical billers overheard Ressy, then mentioned the phrase “charity care.” Ressy was previously told on the phone that she made too much to qualify for any financial assistance. Now, the biller brought Ressy to the billing office and gave her a document to sign. Two hours after her scheduled appointment, Ressy went into surgery.
Three months later, the only money Ressy has paid is the $500 she brought as a deposit. She never received a bill for her surgery, and she is currently negotiating the cost of her anesthesia. “I didn’t know I had any of these options,” Ressy tells Fast Company. “ChatGPT said it’s legal, it’s necessary, and it’s expected to negotiateI didn’t know that.”
Ressy is one of a growing number of people using ChatGPT and other AI tools to untangle the convoluted finances of the American healthcare system. As insurers invest in artificial intelligence, many patients feel the system is increasingly lacking in humanity. A ProPublica report found that Cigna denied 300,000 requests over a two-month period in 2023, with physicians spending an average of 1.2 seconds on each case. Cigna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana are all facing class-action lawsuits that allege the insurers’ AI models denied patients lifesaving care, with denials that ran counter to doctors’ recommendations. Patients often are informed of these denials in confusing form letters that leave patients scrambling mere daysor even hoursbefore scheduled treatments.
Now, thousands of patients are using platforms to appeal rejected claims, according to Alicia Graham, the CEO of AI startup Claimable. Others, like Ressy, are asking for scripts to help them negotiate the cost of care.
Jessica Cunningham, a mother of four and content creator in Southern California, tells Fast Company she runs all of her family’s hospital bills through ChatGPT to make sure they are not being overcharged. In a confounding system, seemingly controlled by bots and byzantine policies, AI can feel like a lifeline. “It makes me feel like I have the smartest person in the world looking out for me,” Gordon says.
“They don’t know what to do next”
With its opaque pricing and convoluted policies, it’s easy to feel confused by the American healthcare system. A Gallup poll found that just 17% of Americans are aware of the cost of healthcare procedures before receiving care. Trying to navigate the medical system is an exhausting process, with more than 80% of patients and caregivers telling the Patient Insight Institute that they spent five or more hours a week on administrative tasks. Eighteen percent said they spent “too many hours to count.” Then there is the financial burden: according to a 2022 survey, four in ten Americans are in medical debt.
Erin Bradshaw, the executive vice president of the Patient Advocacy Foundation, says that by the time people reach out to the nonprofit, they are already overwhelmed. Most are not aware that many hospitals are open to negotiating costs, nor that hospitals have charitable or discount programs. Even if patients are aware of these options, few know who to contact or what to say.
“Often the barrier is they don’t even know what to do next, because you’re dealing with a health crisis to begin with,” Bradshaw says.
Decoding hospitals and insurers’ policies can feel like trying to read another language. One of the most powerful aspects of AI platforms is their ability to analyze vast amounts of text nearly instantaneously, with ChatGPT reading hundreds of words in just a few seconds. Often, people simply surrender when the process becomes too overwhelming. If AI platforms can provide support for patientseven if it’s just by scanning documents and suggesting questions to askit can be a great tool for self-advocacy, Bradshaw says.
At the same time, Bradshaw and other healthcare experts caution against relying solely on AI. Part of their caution is due to privacy concerns. Artificial intelligence is able to provide better results with more information, so if you upload your bills and medical records, you will likely get more fine-tuned responses. However, this information does not necessarily remain private, as most AI platforms save and collect user data. It’s a stark departure from the privacy-obsessed world of medicine, where Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) demands strict protection of sensitive health information.
Also complicating matters is AI platforms’ quirk of offering up occasionally inaccurate information. Different states and healthcare systems have vastly different policies. What works in one siuation might not apply in another, no matter what ChatGPT says. And sometimes, AI platforms are just straight-up wrong. Earlier this year, for example, CNN reported that the FDA’s AI platform was making officials’ jobs more difficult by misrepresenting research and hallucinating nonexistent studies.
That does not mean patients should avoid AI altogether. They just need to check its sources, ensuring the original documents actually support platforms’ statements. Alternatively, experts advise seeking out platforms trained specifically to answer these types of questions.
Courage to take action
In January, the Marshall Allen Project launched the “Marshall Allen Clone,” or MAC. The journalist Marshall Allen, author of “Never Pay the First Bill (And Other Ways to Fight The Healthcare System and Win),” spent his career publishing investigations that helped patients better navigate the healthcare system.After Allen died unexpectedly in 2024, the Marshall Allen Project built MAC, an AI tool trained on Allen’s reporting. The free platform offers personalized answers to people like Ressy struggling to negotiate costs or untangle their options.
“The general AI does a really good job of giving people a great starting point,” Andrew Gordon, a healthcare researcher who volunteers with the Marshall Allen Project, tells Fast Company. What sets the MAC apart is its training on the intricacies of the system. When a patient is advocating for themselves for the first time, Gordon says, feeling secure in the accuracy of this advice can be especially powerful.
“It’s a North Star, it’s confidence, and it’s courage to take action,” Gordon adds.
Other organizations are building even more specific AI tools. Claimable, a startup that launched in 2024 and one of Fast Company‘s 2025 World Changing Ideas, uses AI to generate and submit appeals for patients who have been denied healthcare coverage. The startup is a seed stage company with investors including Walkabout Ventures and Quiet Capital. In less than a year, Claimable has recovered nearly $20 million for patients. Cofounder Alicia Graham tells Fast Company she was drawn to the idea after finding out that up to 99% of people whose claims are denied never file an appeal. Yet, when patients do push back against these denials, a sizable portion up to 80% win, allowing access to treatments previously out of financial reach.
To use Claimable, which costs $39.95 per appeal, patients upload their medical and insurance information and answer a handful of questions. (Unlike most AI platforms, Claimable privately protects this information, in compliance with HIPAA.) The platform generates an appeal, drawing on specific insurance policies, local legislation, and relevant medical research. This kind of tedious work can take hours. Claimable creates a letter in minutes, then submits the appeal to the necessary parties.
Michael Henry was one of the many patients who did not realize he could appeal rejected claims until he heard about Claimable. Henry, a chief of human resources in Battle Creek, Michigan, had started rationing his GLP-1 shots in late 2024 when Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan announced it would no longer cover medications such as Saxenda, Wegovy, and Zepbound. Henry tried another weight-loss drug, but it did not work. He did not want to pay $1,200 a month. So, instead of injecting himself weekly, Henrywho was previously diagnosed as prediabeticcut his shots to every other week, rationing out his remaining medication.
By July, Henry was almost out. He was listening to an episode of “On the Pen,” a podcast about GLP-1s, featuring an interview with Zach Veigulis, another Claimable cofounder. Henry collected his documents and filled out Claimable’s questionnaire. The next day, he got a call from his doctors’ office. He had been approved. Henry picked up his medication later the same day.
The United States is still in the early days of patients using AI to navigate the $5 trillion healthcare system. AI is not always the solution. Not every appeal is approved and not every attempt at negotiation succeeds. Artificial intelligence does not address patients’ fundamental concerns about the healthcare system, from its opaque pricing to confusion and suspicion around denials.
Americans on all sides of the negotiation seem ready to let AI take the reins when it comes to healthcare. Disturbingly, this could mean that artificial intelligence platforms working with insurers will be financially incentivized to deny patients’ claims. A pilot program that is set to launch in January, for example, will use AI platforms to review prior authorizations of treatments. The platforms will be paid a share of the money saved by rejecting treatment.
The ideal future of health insurance would be a system free from concerns of systemic bias, or at least one that does not require superhuman computing capabilities to understand. But as insurers implement new technology, AI can at least offer patients a new tooland a new confidenceto push back against a system that leaves many feeling powerless.
“The more people that appeal, the better,” Claimable cofounder Gordon says. “The more people challengeif they feel they’ve been unjustly deniedthe better for everyone.”
