 |
|
|
|||||
SpaceX launched another of its mammoth Starship rockets on a test flight Monday, successfully making it halfway around the world while releasing mock satellites like last time.Starship the biggest and most powerful rocket ever built thundered into the evening sky from the southern tip of Texas. The booster peeled away and made a controlled entry into the Gulf of Mexico as planned, with the spacecraft skimming space before descending into the Indian Ocean. Nothing was recovered.“Hey, welcome back to Earth, Starship,” SpaceX’s Dan Huot announced as employees cheered. “What a day.”It was the 11th test flight for a full-scale Starship, which SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk intends to use to send people to Mars. NASA’s need is more immediate. The space agency cannot land astronauts on the moon by decade’s end without the 403-foot (123-meter) Starship, the reusable vehicle meant to get them from lunar orbit down to the surface and back up.Instead of remaining inside Launch Control as usual, Musk said that for the first time he was going outside to watch “much more visceral.”The previous test flight in August a success after a string of explosive failures followed a similar path with similar goals. More maneuvering was built in this time, especially for the spacecraft. SpaceX conducted a series of tests during the spacecraft’s entry over the Indian Ocean as practice for future landings back at the launch site.Like before, Starship carried up eight mock satellites mimicking SpaceX’s Starlinks. The entire flight lasted just over an hour, originating from Starbase near the Mexican border.NASA’s acting administrator Sean Duffy praised Starship’s progress. “Another major step toward landing Americans on the moon’s south pole,” he said via X.SpaceX is modifying its Cape Canaveral launch sites to accommodate Starships, in addition to the much smaller Falcon rockets used to transport astronauts and supplies to the International Space Station for NASA. The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Marcia Dunn, AP Aerospace Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
News organizations including The New York Times, The Associated Press and the conservative Newsmax television network said Monday they will not sign a Defense Department document about its new press rules, making it likely the Trump administration will evict their reporters from the Pentagon.Those outlets say the policy threatens to punish them for routine news gathering protected by the First Amendment. The Washington Post, The Atlantic and Reuters on Monday also publicly joined the group that says it will not be signing. AP confirmed Monday afternoon that it would not sign.“Reuters is bound by its commitment to accurate, impartial and independent news,” the agency said in a statement. “We also steadfastly believe in the press protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, the unrestricted flow of information and journalism that serves the public interest without fear or favor. The Pentagon’s new restrictions erode these fundamental values.”Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reacted by posting the Times’ statement on X and adding a hand-waving emoji. His team has said that reporters who don’t acknowledge the policy in writing by Tuesday must turn in badges admitting them to the Pentagon and clear out their workspaces the next day.The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the Defense Department for information classified or otherwise that he has not approved for release.Newsmax, whose on-air journalists are generally supportive of President Donald Trump’s administration, said that “we believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further.”Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the rules establish “common sense media procedures.”“The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is,” Parnell said. “This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”Hegseth also reposted a question from a follower who asked, “Is this because they can’t roam the Pentagon freely? Do they believe they deserve unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment?”Hegseth answered, “yes.” Reporters say neither of those assertions is true.Pentagon reporters say signing the statement amounts to admitting that reporting any information that hasn’t been government-approved is harming national security. “That’s simply not true,” said David Schulz, director of Yale University’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.Journalists have said they’ve long worn badges and don’t access classified areas, nor do they report information that risks putting any Americans in harm’s way.“The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law,” the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement on Monday. “There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities.”Noting that taxpayers pay nearly $1 trillion annually to the U.S. military, Times Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson said “the public has a right to know how the government and military are operating.”Trump has applied pressure on news organizations in several ways, with ABC News and CBS News settling lawsuits related to their coverage. Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times and Wall Street Journal and moved to choke off funding for government-run services like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. David Bauder writes about the media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social David Bauder AP Media Writer
Category:
E-Commerce
I was asked to be the keynote speaker recently for an important conference at Rutgers Business School on the future of business education. I thought it would be helpful for business school leadership and students and for recruiters of business school graduates to recap my message in this Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights (PTW/PI) piece. It is called The Future[s] of Business Education: Two Strategy Paths. And as always, you can find all the previous PTW/PI here. Audience participation The conference attendees were mainly U.S. business school deans and other senior faculty members. The array of deans was quite impressive with deans from leading schools including Cornell, Goizueta, Haas, Kellogg, Stern, Ross, Tepper, Tuck, and Wharton. I started with a bit of audience participation by asking all tenure stream academics from business schools to stand up. I then asked them to sit down if their school has in its MBA program a required statistics course that provides instruction on how to make an inference from a sample to the universe from which the sample is drawn. As I expected, 100% of the audience sat down. That is now completely standard fare. I asked them to stand back up and then to sit down if their school seeks to convince MBA students that they should make their decisions based on rigorous data analysis. Again, as I expected, 100% sat down. So, I got confirmation that business education universally teaches students both how to make inferences from data and that they should make data-based decisions. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}} Making inferences from data I then dove into making inferences from data. As I have pointed out many times before and recently at Nudgestock in London, statistics teaches students that the only legitimate way to make an inference to the universe from which a sample is drawn is to ensure that the sample is representative. You cant ask a sample of men what they want in their Electric Vehicle (EV) and infer what consumers want in their EV because men are not representative of all consumers. The same would hold for a sample of women or young consumers or east coast consumers. Statistics teaches that you can legitimately use a sample of men only if you are trying to determine what male EV buyers wantbecause that sample is representative of the universe. In addition, the sample must be big enough to be statistically significant. However, it is important to realize that 100% of all data that we use in such statistical analysis is from the past. We never have data from the future. Hence, when we use data analysis to tell us what to do, we are implicitly assuming that the future is identical to the past. Otherwise, the sample wouldnt be representative and business school statistics class tells us that we shouldnt be using it. Yet our marketing, strategy, finance, operations, and HR classes tell students to make decisions based on rigorous data analysis. The Aristotelian distinction I then explained the Aristotelian distinction about which I have written before. Greek philosopher Aristotle was the father of science and his Analytica Posteriora the most important work in the history of science. While he created the scientific method, which was formalized in the Scientific Revolution 2000 years later, he did not prescribe its use everywhere. He made a critical distinction between two parts of the world. In one part, things cannot be other than they are. For example, anywhere on the earths surface, gravity has always and will always cause objects to accelerate toward the ground at 32 feet/second2because when it comes to gravity, things cannot be other than they are. But when it comes to smartphones, there were zero in the world in 1999 and probably (the estimates are all over the place) over seven billion now. Smartphones exist in the part of the world where things can be other than they are. That world changed dramatically with the introduction of the BlackBerry in 2000 and has changed pretty much every year since. Aristotle did more than make this distinction. He encouraged the use of his scientific method in the part of the world where things cannot be other than they are but warned against ever using it in the part of the world where things can be other than they are. The father of science was crystal clear and modern-day statisticians would affirm his logic. In essence, he was warning against the use of unrepresentative samples. For business educators this calls for an assessment of the degree to which business is in the cannot part or the can part of the world. The whole business obsession with VUCA (i.e., volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) suggests businesspeople see the future of business as constantly shiftingi.e., can, not cannot. Of course, there are exceptions. Plastic cools at a certain rate in an injection molding machine. But that phenomenon represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the business world. Consumers change, competitors change, technology changes, regulations change, and so on. The future is routinely different than the past. The business school schism Therein lies the fundamental business school schism. Business schools teach two things that cant coexist in business. Businesspeople live in a world in which the future is routinely different than the past. But they are educatedand universally so as demonstrated by my audience participationto use methods appropriate only for a world in which the future is identical to the past. This leaves business school students with a choice. On one hand, they can ignore their business education, bt that begs the question: why spend time and money on something that you subsequently ignore? On the other hand, they can embrace their education and become terribly flawed technocratsfollowing the analysis despite its inherent logical inconsistency. I think they are choosing a bit of both. On one hand, they are actually doing more than ignoring their business education: they are skipping it entirely, especially at the MBA level. I pointed out in a 2013 speech at the Academy of Management that U.S. students applying to U.S. MBA programs was in secular decline and from what I can see, the decline has continued. On the other hand, the MBA is still the second biggest volume graduate degree in America (after one-year Master of Educationwhich has a built-in demand because teachers get an automatic salary bump with one). So, many are still embracing it. Two strategy paths This leaves two strategy paths for business schools. On one hand, they can keep teaching fundamentally flawed, logically inconsistent content and watch business education continue to decline for two reasons. First, many prospective students will take a pass on business education because they dont want to be trained to be data technocrats. Second, the business world has only a limited appetite for absorbing data technocrats. On the other hand, they can do what I recommended in my speech. That is to teach the Aristotelian distinction and equip students to follow Aristotles instruction in the part of the world that can be other than it is, which is the dominant part of business. That entails teaching business students to imagine possibilities and to understand the logic of possibilities well enough to choose the one for which the most compelling argument can be madewhich means focusing more on developing students logic capabilities than their analytical prowess. The business school reaction Sadly, I dont come out of the conference feeling that business education will choose the second path. In business education (and probably any other kind of tertiary education), when convention is challenged it is attacked, which is what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsand it is exactly what happened at the end of my talk. The first audience question wasnt a question; it was an assertion from a dean (dont know who he was but I think he said his name was Bruce): That was a lot of arm-waving. My immediate reaction, which I verbalized, was that this was why I was delighted to have left the academy six years ago and havent thought a single day about going back. This is what the academy does. When it doesnt like something because it challenges convention, somebody takes responsibility for launching an attack. And since they know behavioral economics, they know that the rest of the audience will anchor on the attack, and the challenger will be destroyed by brute force. Childish but true. I didnt take the bait and instead of defending, I simply asked what in my talk constituted arm-waving? He didnt like that much and mumbled around for a while then asked me to put up slide 13 and pointed to the second point and said I hadnt explained it much. So, not explaining one point on one slide as thoroughly as he wished meant that the entire talk could be dismissed as arm-waving. Suffice it to say, he didnt get the satisfaction he was looking forand I think I can give myself credit for not eviscerating him. Twenty years ago, I would have. But I realize now that this is theater, and he was just playing his assigned role. Since the designated attack dog hadnt succeeded, the rest of the audience questions were mild and not unfriendly. But I am quite convinced that nothing is going to change on this front. Business schools will continue to teach the schismthough perhaps they will do it more sheepishly. Practitioner insights Paradigms die hardper Kuhn. The paradigm of business education teaching students to make rigorous data-based decisions is well entrenchedsuper well-entrenched. The standard approach of the people who depend on the continuation of the dominant paradigm is to fight any attempt to challenge itwhether they have any useful argument or not. That is where business education is todayand it isnt going to change from within. My advice then is for two kinds of practitionersbusiness school students (prospective or actual), and companies that recruit from business schools. For students, lower your expectations, though it is a bit different for undergraduate business versus MBA education. For undergrads, you will pick up a language system for business and learn some useful business concepts. One way or another, you will have to do thatand this is one plausible way. But protect yourself. Understand that they are teaching across a schism, and it doesnt make sense. Just ignore them. You cant be a useful businessperson making rigorous data-based decisions the way it will be taught to you. For MBAs, think carefully. Your opportunity costs are much higher than for undergrads in business because the average full-time MBA has 45 years of business experienceand they give up two years of an already attractive salary to take a full-time MBA. You share some of the undergrad reasons for attending, but at a far higher opportunity cost. Many of you should take a pass. This isnt an institution that is learning and getting better. It is entrenched in an agenda that isnt helpful to the worldor you. For employers, it makes sense to recruit there. The biggest value of business education programs is selectivity. It is hard to get into a quality business program, so the schools have presorted for you. The second value, in the case of MBAs, is commitment due to the high opportunity cost they pay. They must have high commitment to personal improvement to incur the out-of-pocket and opportunity costs to get their education. So, it is a high-value cohort from which to recruit. But you need to recognize that you will have to deprogram many of them who will graduate believing that they need to make all their decisions entirely based on rigorous data analysisbecause that is what they are taught. You will have to deprogram them for them to be useful to you. But if you understand that and have a system for deprograming, you will get human capital that it is worth recruiting. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}}
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||