 |
|
|
|||||
The global economy is holding up better than expected despite major shocks such as President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but the head of the International Monetary Fund says that resilience may not last. Buckle up, Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said in a speech at a think tank Wednesday. Uncertainty is the new normal and it is here to stay. Her comments at the Milken Institute come on a day when gold prices hit $4,000 an ounce for the first time as investors seek safe haven from a weaker dollar and geopolitical uncertainty and before the IMF and World Bank hold their annual meetings next week in Washington. Trump’s trade penalties are expected to be in sharp focus when global finance leaders and central bankers gather. The worldwide economy is forecast to grow by 3% this year, and Georgieva is citing a number of factors for why it may not slip below that: Countries have put in place decisive economic policies, the private sector has adapted, and the tariffs have proved less severe than originally feared. But before anyone heaves a big sigh of relief, please hear this: Global resilience has not yet been fully tested. And there are worrying signs the test may come. Just look at the surging global demand for gold, she said. On Trump’s tariffs, she says the full effect is still to unfold. In the U.S., margin compression could give way to more price pass-through, raising inflation with implications for monetary policy and growth.” The Republican administration imposed import taxes on nearly all U.S. trading partners in April, including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China and even the tiny African nation of Lesotho. Were the king of being screwed by tariffs, Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. While the U.S. has announced some trade frameworks with nations such as the United Kingdom and Vietnam, the tariffs have created uncertainty worldwide. Elsewhere, a flood of goods previously destined for the U.S. market could trigger a second round of tariff hikes, Georgieva said. The Supreme Court next month will hear arguments about whether Trump has the authority to impose some of his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In her wide-ranging remarks, Georgieva pointed to youth discontent around the world as many young people foresee a future where they earn less than their parents. The young are taking their disappointment to the streets from Lima to Rabat, from Paris to Nairobi, from Kathmandu to Jakarta, all are demanding better opportunities,” she said. “And here in the U.S., the chances of growing up to earn more than your parents keeps falling and here too, discontent has been evident and it has helped precipitate the policy revolution that is now unfolding, reshaping trade, immigration and many international frameworks. She also called for greater internal trade in Asia, more business-friendly changes in Africa and more competitiveness in Europe. For the United States, Georgieva urged the government to address the federal debt and to encourage household saving. The national debt is the total amount of money that the federal government owes to its creditors. The federal debt has increased from $380 billion in 1925 to $37.64 trillion in 2025, according to Treasury Department data. The Congressional Budget Office reported in July that Trumps new tax and spending law will add $3.4 trillion to that total through 2034. The IMF is a 191-country lending organization that seeks to promote global growth and financial stability and to reduce poverty. Fatima Hussein, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Up until a week ago, I was really quite satisfied by my iPhone 17 Pro. Not the Liquid Glass, but its soft orange aluminum frame felt just new enough to give me a spark. Then I opened the Google Pixel 10 Pro Fold. Yes, its name is too long. Yes, it costs $700 more than my iPhone. Yes, it’s still heavier than I want it to be. And yet, I hate to admit it . . . the Fold justifies every analyst who has cried that Apples hesitance to adopt flexible screen technologies is starting to make it look dated. An estimated 17 million folding smartphones sold last year, representing a scant 1.5% of the smartphone market, but about every analyst expects that figure to balloon in the next few years. I believe that trajectory could prove out, but I still see the market going either wayit will come down to if the technology can keep iterating toward a sweet spot that turns the tech into delectable design. [Photo: Google] Folding phones began as a gimmick deployed by a smartphone industry thats satisfied their customers too well. Theres simply not much reason to upgrade your phone, ever, unless youve broken it. But that doesnt mean theyll always be silly. After all, weve rolled up scrolls and folded maps and letters for centuries. Its just a natural way to convert a large 2D object into a more portable one. But theyve definitely felt a bit futile, given that their thickness and weight offset any value of space savings. (Do you really want to unfold a brick into a thinner brick?) In the meantime, heres a no-nonsense take on what its really like to use the current state of the art in folding phoneswith thoughts from Googles own development team on how it’s approaching the challenge, and possibilities, ahead. [Photo: Google] The challenge of building a folding phone without making a two-phone sandwich Herein lies the challenge the industry has been learning the hard way: Screens aren’t paper. They aren’t built to fold. And it’s required incredible ingenuity to change that. Ive been trying foldable phones since Motorola rerelased the Razr in 2019, kicking off the era of folding smartphones with a rebooted retro play. At the time, Motorola brought me into its labs to demonstrate how it had achieved the impossible. It wasn’t just another slab of electronics, but a complex mechanical device that shifted plates around to allow a ribbon of OLED screen to fold open and closed without breaking. Motorola, alongside Samsung and Google in particular, have worked hard to expand this market while shrinking their own bulk. The companies have simplified their screens from ornate mechanical contraptions to a thin sheet of flexible glass that belies the complexity beneath (impact coatings, OLED, and hinge mechanics that prevents the screen from breaking when opened and shut). They’ve all made incredible progress. The Pixel 10 Fold is 2mm thicker than an iPhone 17 Pro when folded. But actually 0.2mm thinner than an iPhone Air unfolded. What you may notice more is the weight, which is about 2 oz. heavier than a pro smartphone. [Photo: Google] You dont really see the fold, and you dont care when you do The Pixel 10 Pro Fold unfolds to reveal a roughly 6″x6″ screen that opens like a book. So the big question is: When you open the Fold, do you see the fold in the screen? Sometimes yes, sometimes not at all. Head on at night in a dark room, its completely imperceptible. Bright white webpages are surprisingly adept at burning through any glare that might reveal geometric imperfection. The seam is most prominent if you see someone else using the Fold from the side. Most of the time, its subtle enough to forget about. Obviously its a goal for Google to get rid of the screen fold. Stuff that we don’t want the user to think about, to ever notice toit needs to disappear, says Claude Zellweger, senior director of design at Google who oversees phone hardware. But he also admits it is a somewhat impossible task for the engineering team. To get closer to the impossible, Google has rebuilt its hinge to be smaller, eliminating the micro gears to have it run on tiny sliding cams (classic mechanical device that turns rotation into straight movementkind of like a jack in the box). It helps hide the crease, but it also improves the all around proportions of the phone. Its all in srvice of Googles somewhat ironic, ultimate goal of the product. We want it to feel like your regular phone, says Zellweger. The outside screen doesnt make sense to mebut it does to Google For those moments you dont want to unfold the Fold, theres also a more typical touchscreen on the outside. It’s mean to feel like a regular touchscreen smartphone, but it still doesnt really work that way. Its a bit too thick, a bit too heavy. Google insists its needed, especially to account for more typical smartphone behavior. In its own research, Google found most people are only spending a bit of time on their phones for most interactions, meaning unfolding it every time seemed like too much effort. [Photo: Google] A lot of interactions on your phone are short and fleeting. The text message that youve got to send to your partner quickly, the Spotify song that you need to change, the alarm that you need to set, [these tasks are done] within a minute or two, says George Hwang, product manager at Google leading the Folds engineering. “And if you look at that data, those are probably like, frequency wise, about 60 to 70% of everything you do. So it’s really, really high. I get his point. Yet the Fold isnt quite normal, so using it as a typical phone isnt quite normal. The big outer screen actually ruins the occasion of using the product. I like that unfolding the phone feels intentional. Its a certain barrier to checking your screen and getting sucked into apps. That could be a feature not a bug! [Screenshot: courtesy of the author] The keyboard needs to be adjustable because foldables should be ergonomic Tiny qualm, but here it is: The Pixel Fold features a split virtual keyboard for typing. Its quite comfortable and you can type pretty darn fast on the thing. But buttons like enter are still placed way too far into the corners . . . making them a real jam of the thumb to hit. Look, Google and everyone elsemy thumbs are like Jordans knees. Theyve played a lot of games at this point in their career. For such a large device, users should be able to tweak the ergonomics of the keyboard to their exact preference for optimum comfort, because the screen has room. Seriously, why arent keyboards perfectly configured to our hand sizes in an era when my face and fingerprint unlock the phone? At the very least, give me a few more options of the default. Google is getting closer to a proper fidget Since Motorola debuted the first modern folding phone, these designs have gotten thinner, lighter, and open and close without feeling like youre gonna break em any moment. But . . . it still feels strange to open a folding phone for the first time. It has a sort of even resistance curve that feels less like snapping open a flip phone or even opening a hard cover book than it does bending a thick coat hanger into a new shape. You actually have to open and close it a bit for the mechanisms to feel properly loosened. Its weird! Of course this is a small qualm in the face of some really unbelievable engineering work, but the experience of opening and closing most folding phones just doesn’t feel good enough for these products to appear solidified. It doesn’t offer a sense of innate satisfaction or completion to the action. The hardware works, but for some reason it also feels a little dead. The Fold is getting better in this regard. It offers a light, almost “tap” sound when you open it, and a more satisfying compact-case clap when it closes. It feels good. I still want it to feel fidgety-amazing. [Gmail left. Google Drive files right. Screenshot: courtesy of the author] Big apps hit different in a thin frame I didnt unlock some amazing multitasking experience with the Pixelthough you can technically load two apps and, in some cases, drag and drop files between them. Gmail feels approachable for sure, but it falls short of its potential. It formats information into either a big email or a few thin columns . . . essentially giving you the experience of holding a few phone side-by-side. It’s a sensible solution, but one that falls short of rethinking information architecture and display entirely to celebrate the possibilities of a larger screen. [Gmail. Screenshot: courtesy of the author] But media-forward apps are a real a delight. [Screenshot: courtesy of the author] Instagram goes from feeling like youre perusing large postage stamps on your regular phone, to looking at CD jewel cases on a Pixel Fold. The same is true for TikToks and YouTube clips. Yes, this sort of scale can exist on a laptop, or a tablet, of course. But the thin bezel of Googles latest phone makes it feels almost like youre holding this media in your hands. [Screenshot: courtesy of the author] It’s a unique sensationGoogle Earth suddenly feels magical again. The act of holding the phone with two hands rather than one creates a preciousness to the experiencelike reading a book, or using your full attention to accept a gift. It demands intention by default. Im reminded how Zellweger was inspired by the sensation of a Moleskin when Google released its first Fold in 2023. When held open, the Fold really does feel like a precious, digital take on a notebook. [Screenshot: courtesy of the author] This is so close to feeling great . . . but what else could it be? There is an ideal folding phone in all of our hearts. The Fold still isnt quite there. Its an engineering marvel with some very thoughtful touches of design, do not get me wrong. Its neat as hell. It still feels a generation or two (or three?) removed from whatever sweet spot of iteration takes an idea from novel to captivating, or even essential. Even if folding phones are the next big paradigm in smartphones, I’m not sure it means that those smartphones need to be as large as the Pixel Foldand this 6-inch-ish crossover vehicle form the industry has landed on. But technically speaking, can we make these phones that much smaller or thinner? Because looking at smartphones over the past decade, in many cases, weve actually seen them grow thicker. The iPhone Air, for all of its ingenuity, is still thicker than an iPhone 4. The industry seems cautious to make anyone give up any bit of the growing Swiss army knife of features in a modern phone. There is still headroom, and we’re excited about future products and things like that. On general, we’re going [pursue thinness] aggressively, but within measure, so that we don’t compromise durability and battery life, says Zellweger. Hwang adds that its easy to forget all the features we take for granted in modern smartphones, like haptics, speakers, and of course, cameras. All-in-all, these features add up to keep our phones thick. There are subtle trade-offs when you do when you keep on pushing in [thinness] that I think most users wouldn’t know until they actually hold the device and use it side-by-side, says Hwang, referring to these compromises as paper cuts. I hope to see the entire smartphone industry push the boundaries in other ways. I want small phones like the iPhone Mini back. I want small, folding phones like the Razr back (and indeed, Motorola has been snagging some market share by offering a lower cost, smaller folding smartphone). I want curvy wearables portended by the Nike+ Fuelband back. I want to see what we can do with flexible screens outside of this smartphone-to-small-tablet size everyone seems to be investing their energies in. I agree with you, says Zellweger when I present him with most of this rant. Fundamentally, I think the extremes [in screen size] are interesting. And I think in a world where we are moving towards more sort of agentic based interactions, our need for for large displays may change. Realistically, we think it’s going to change in the next five years, adds Hwang. And so we’re really in an interesting time to think through this stuff and be involved in it. Indeed. Right now, there is a unique opportunity to not just make a bunch of mostly same phones, but to push the extremes of size, shape, ad ergonomics. In a sea of the regular, its so easy to stand out.
Category:
E-Commerce
Carbon offsets have existed for decades, and the size of the voluntary carbon market has ballooned to about $2 billion. Many countries and countless companies, including giants like Amazon and FedEx, use carbon offsets to reduce their emissions as they work toward reaching net zero. And yet, these offsets havent significantly curbed global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, global emissions are still increasing. As a climate solution, carbon offsets have failedand according to a new scientific review looking at 25 years of carbon offset research, theyve failed because theyre riddled with intractable, deep-seated problems that incremental changes wont be able to solve. Carbon offsets have long been criticized for their issues, including concerns over greenwashing or double-counting. Multiple studies have found that individual offset projects overestimate their climate benefits. Offsets also dont always last; trees used as carbon offsets have burned in wildfires, releasing all the carbon theyve long stored. Proponents of carbon offsets say such criticisms focus on a few bad apples. But the problem is, it isnt really a few bad apples. Its pretty much all the apples, says Joseph Romm, a senior research fellow at the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, and the lead author on the review of offset research. 25 years of evidenceand issues Romm and his fellow researchers looked at carbon offset studies spanning more than two decades, and used more than 200 references, including documents from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Carbon offsets are essentially a way for rich polluterseither countries or companiesto finance projects that reduce emissions somewhere else. Then, they claim that projects emissions reduction for themselves, while continuing to pollute the atmosphere. Offsets need to be verified, and also additionala term meaning that the project wouldnt have happened anyway (it only exists, and benefits the climate, because of the offset program). But the idea of additionality is flawed, Romm says. Take renewable energy projects, which have long been the base of carbon offset projects, and are still the most common offsets today. We pay someone to do a renewable energy project, and then we say that that has reduced emissions. [But] the thing is, renewables are now the cheapest [energy to build], Romm says. As the cheapest option, renewable projects likely would be built anyway, so the offset project didnt really change anything. Since the carbon market is voluntary, theres no regulations or oversight. That creates a race to the bottom, Romm says, where buyers pay low prices for offset projects. Its left the world with the impression that theres a vast sea of cheap offsets in poor countries, he says. Its just not the reality. Its why theres been a reckoning in terms of companies realizing its going to take more effort to reduce their emissions. Other issues include impermanence (like offset projects burning in wildfires); leakage (when the pollution or logging is simply moved elsewhere, outside of the offsets boundary); and double counting (when more than one party claims the same carbon credit). Carbon offsets are a distraction Essentially, the voluntary carbon market is full of junk offsets that dont really have a climate benefit. The appeal of offsets is obvious: Without having to change their own behavior or pay a lot of money, countries and companies can claim another entitys emissions reductions. But the reality isnt that easy, and offsets are a distraction from the fact that we need to stop burning so many fossil fuels in the first place. At the end of the day, this comes down to: Everyone needs to get their own emissions as low as possible, Romm says. Theres no offloading this problem on someone else. Actual carbon capture projects, which sequester carbon from the atmosphere, could work as offsets, but those are currently expensive and operate at a small scale. It takes a lot less money and energy to not burn fossil fuels in the first place, than to burn them and then recapture the emissions. Such criticism of offsets isnt new. Romms review cites 25 years worth of them. This paper also builds on Romm’s publication from 2023, titled Carbon offsets are unscalable, unjust, and unfixableand a threat to the Paris Agreement. Romm hopes that by putting all this research in one place, and by having a comprehensive look back at the way carbon offsets have failed over the past two decades, it helps people understand the reality. Leaders of companies or countries always think they can be the one to solve the intractable issues within carbon offsets, Romm says. They say their technology is better, or that they really care about making it work. The review paper counters that notion. We wanted to have somewhere someone could go and simply see the compendium of studies and see that people have been warning about this for over two decades, he says. Everything they warned about is true. No one’s ever solved these problems.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||