 |
|
|
|||||
AI is upending business, our personal lives, and much more in betweenincluding the operation of the U.S. government. In total, The Washington Post reported 2,987 uses of AI across the executive branch last year, hundreds of which are described as high impact. Some agencies have embraced the technology wholeheartedly. NASA has gone from 18 reported AI applications in 2024 to 420 in 2025; the Department of Health and Human Services, overseen by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now reports 398 uses, up from 255 a year ago. The Department of Energy has seen a fourfold increase in AI usage, with a similar jump at the Commerce Department. Agencies were effectively given the green light in April 2025, when the White House announced it was eliminating barriers to AI adoption across the federal government. They appear to have taken that invitation seriously. Those numbers may raise eyebrowsor trigger concern among observers worried about bias, hallucinations, and lingering memories of the chaotic AI-enabled government overhaul associated with the quasi-official Department of Government Efficiency during Elon Musks brief orbit near the center of power. Its not clear using AI for most government tasks is necessary, or preferable to conventional software, cautions Chris Schmitz, a researcher at the Hertie School in Berlin. The digital infrastructure of the U.S. government, like that of many others, is a deeply suboptimal, dated, path-dependent patchwork of legacy systems, and using AI for quick wins is frequently more of a Band-Aid than a sustainable modernization. Others who have worked at the center of government digital innovation argue that alarmism may be misplaced. In fact, they say, experimenting with AI can be a form of smart governanceif done carefully. Its become apparent that we never really properly moved government into the internet era, says Jennifer Pahlka, cofounder and chair of the board at the Recoding America Fund and former U.S. deputy chief technology officer under the Obama administration. “There have been real problems that have come out of that where government is just not meeting the needs of people in the way that it should.” Pahlka believes that experimentation with AI in government is probably somewhat appropriate given how early we are in the generative AI era. Testing is necessary to understand whereand where notthe technology can improve operations. What you want, though, is ways of experimenting with this that gives you very clear and effective feedback loops, such that you are catching problems before it’s rolled out to large numbers of people or to have a large impact, she says. Still, it is far from certain that AI systems will produce outcomes that serve all Americans equally. Denice Ross, executive fellow in applied technology policy at the University of California, Berkeley, warns that rigorous evaluation is essential. The way government would find out if a tool is doing what it’s supposed to for the American people is by collecting and analyzing data about how it performs, and the outcomes for different populations, says Ross, who served as chief data scientist in the White House from 2023 to 2024. The core issue, she says, is whether a given system is actually helping the people its meant to serve, or whether some people [are] being left behind or harmed. The only way to know is to look closely at the data. That might mean discovering, for example, that a tool works fine for digitally fluent users but falls short for people without high-speed internet or for older Americans. Public participation is also critical. Getting the conditions for legitimate government AI use right is hard, and this work by and large has not been done, the Hertie School’s Schmitz argues, noting that there has been no real democratic negotiation of the legal basis for automated decision-making or build-out of oversight structures, for example. There are also reasons to be cautious about rushed or poorly structured AI deployments, including reported plans at the Department of Transportation to experiment with tools like Google Gemini. Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that while the government should be exploring how rapid advances in AI can serve the public, it must do so without sacrificing democratic accountability. The priority, he suggests, should be preserving accountable human judgment in government decision-making before momentum and political expediency crowd it out. Looking at the governments overall AI strategy, Pahlka says she sees some grounds for cautious optimism. From what she can tell, many of the early efforts appear focused on applying AI to bureaucratic bottlenecks and process slowdowns where it could meaningfully boost productivity. If that focus holds, she suggests, the payoff could be pretty useful. Still, she believes more care and attention to detail is neededsomething the Trump White House has not always demonstrated. What I’m not sure I see is a questioning of the processes themselves, she says, explaining that, in her view, thoughtful AI adoption requires asking whether a process should exist in its current form at allnot simply whether AI can accelerate one step within it. That distinction matters because poorly implemented AI can have real consequences. Governments track record with large-scale technology deployments is uneven, and layering AI onto flawed systems could cause undue harm. We have consistently rolled out technology in government in ways that have harmed people because we do not have test and learn frameworks as the fundamental way of approaching these problems, Pahlka says. If done right, however, the opportunity is significant. AI could help government function more effectively, and more equitably, for everyone.
Category:
E-Commerce
No matter how much you like your coworkers, youre going to have some conflicts with them. Most of those conflicts involve differences of opinion or approach. A colleague may do something that irks you or causes difficulties for the work youre doing. While those conflicts may lead to tension for some period, you typically get beyond those difficulties and may even wind up with a closer relationship to them later. But, there are some colleagues where anger hardens into resentment. That can cause real workplace problems, because youre going to have to engage with that colleague which can get in the way of a projects success. Plus, no matter how good you think you are at hiding your resentments, chances are your feelings for that person shine through in your engagements with them as well as your conversations about them. Not only will those resentments make projects harder to do, they can also stand in the way of your success in your organization. After all, most promotions involve moving up in leadership. Companies like to promote individuals they think will bring people together rather than dividing them. Your resentments mark you as a source of division rather than unity. So, how can you get over a resentment? After all, you cant just wave a magic wand and have your feelings go away. Talk it out The best strategy for dealing with resentments is to talk about it with your colleague. When someone has done something that continues to bother you, it can be valuable to clear the air. Conversations like this arent always an option, but if they are the can be quite effective in moving your relationship forward (even if they are uncomfortable in the moment). Invite your colleague out for coffee. Your colleague might be surprised by this invitation, because (chances are) they know that you are annoyed at them. Let them know that what they did, how it affected you, and why you are still upset about it. Before you have that conversation, you should actually practice saying all of this so that you have words to describe it clearly. Dont wing it. This strategy can be helpful for a few reasons. First, there are times where you say your grievance it out loud when practicing it and then realize that the problem here is you. That is, you may discover that you have been making a bigger deal out of something than it is worth. Second, there are times when the other party doesnt realize the impact their actions had on you. This conversation may help them to better recognize the impact of what they do on others. Third, this conversation is likely to help you to see the event from a different perspective. When you talk out a complicated interaction, you may find that the other persons actions were completely sensible from their perspective, while you had been feeling like they had bad intent. Forgive (and forget) Another powerful tool for dealing with resentment is to forgive the other person. That resentment youre carrying is fundamentally about your reaction to that person as a result of your reaction to them. When you see them or think about them, you are reminded of what they did, and the bad feeling wells up again. When you forgive someone else, you are acknowledging what they did and the bad impact it had, and then you are accepting that action. Research suggests that forgiveness primarily benefits the forgiver. In particular, when you forgive someone, it dampens the negative emotions you experience later. It also makes some of the details of what the other person did less memorable. So, by forgiving the other person, you are taking an important step toward enabling that resentment to have less impact on your behavior in the future than it does now. Look in the mirror If you find yourself unable to talk with the other person or to forgive them, it is time to take a look at yourself. No matter how good a person you are or how much you strive to be a good colleague, you have probably had some moments where your actions harmed someone else. Because you like to think of yourself as a good person, you probably focus less on your bad moments than on your good ones. As a result, you may not remember some of the times that your actions had a negative impact on others. When you call to mind a few instances of your own less-than-stellar behavior, it can sometimes open you up to forgiving someone else. It can be particularly helpful if you think about times that other people have forgiven you for something you did. Imagine what your life would be like if everyone resented you for things you did in your worst moments. Recognize that your own career and success is owed in part to the willingness of others to forgive you. Finally, just because you forgive someone or let go of a resentment doesnt mean you have to trust them blindly. If someone has treated you badly in the past and you are not convinced that they are reformed, you should still be vigilant when you work with them in the future. You can be careful in your engagements with a colleague while still treating them cordially and respectfully.
Category:
E-Commerce
Marks & Spencer is one of the latest U.K. high-street brands to launch a skiwear collection. Even supermarket Lidl is in on the action, with items in its ski range priced at less than 5 pounds (roughly $6.75). This follows earlier moves by fast-fashion retailers such as Topshop, which launched SNO in the mid 2010s, and Zaras imaginatively titled Zara Ski collection, which launched in 2023. Fast-fashion brand PrettyLittleThings Apres Ski edit (a collection of clothes chosen for a specific theme) tells potential shoppers that going skiing is not necessarily essential, which is good, because many of the products in the collection are listed as athleisure, not sportswear. Its not just the high street. Kim Kardashians shapewear brand Skims has recently collaborated with the North Face and has dressed Team USA for the 2026 Winter Olympicsthough these are strictly designed to serve the athletes during downtime, not for the piste. Alongside dedicated skiwear lines, the apres-ski aesthetic has become a recurring seasonal trend over recent years, expanding well beyond the slopes. You may have noticed the slew of ski-themed sweatshirts across the market. One of these, an Abercrombie & Fitch sweatshirt, went viral in January after a buyer noticed that the depicted resort was actually Val Thorens, Francenot Aspen, Colorado, as the text printed on the garment claimed. View this post on Instagram A post shared by kt (@outdoorkatelyn) It is not only the quality of ski-themed fashion products that is a cause for concern, but also those designed for the slope. Many of these high-street collections have received criticism from consumers, with some claiming that the garments are not fit for purpose. Meanwhile, many influencers have taken to social media to warn their followers to avoid skiing in garments from fast-fashion brands. Such were the complaints that Zara Ski reportedly renamed its products water resistant instead of waterproof. These collections respond, in part, to a genuine need for womens sportswear that is practical, fashionable, and, most critically, affordable. Ski and performance wear in general is costly, and such collections being both fashionable and relatively low-cost make for an attractive prospect. And yet, if these garments are so poorly suited to skiing, then what are they for? The visual allure of skiing Despite sports playing a key role in challenging gender ideology and perceptions of female physicality, the perceived importance of femininity and how women look while doing sports has lingered. Images of sportswomen frequently fixate on gender difference and femininity is foregrounded over athleticism. Here, the glamorous image of skiing has much to account for. Glamour relies on distance and difference to conjure a feeling of longing. For many, the novelty of eating fondue at 3,000 feet is out of reach, as is the ever-increasing price of a lift pass. Throughout the 20th century, the glamour of skiing has been defined by womens fashion. In the 1920s, Vogue magazine featured illustrations of elongated skiing women on their covers. Designer Puccis aerodynamic one-piece ski suit premiered in Harpers Bazaar magazine in 1947, while Monclers ski anoraksphotographed on Jackie Kennedy in 1966gave birth to a vision of American ski cool. Changing ski fashions were recorded in photographer Slim Aaronss resort photography, capturing the leisure class on and off piste between the 1950s and 1980s. [Image: Vogue Archive] Womens fashionable skiwear has taken many forms since the activity first became popular in the 1920s. It was during this decade that skiing became a marker of affluence. Leather, gaberdine, fur, and wool were popular materials in early womens skiwear and were selected for their natural properties; water-repellence, insulation, breathability. By the mid-century, womens skiwear became more focused on silhouette and excess fabric was considered unfeminine. Equally, skiwear gradually became more colourful, and in the fashion press women were even encouraged to match their lipstick to their ski ensemble. By the 1980s, skiwear aligned with the fashionable wedge silhouette; causing the shoulders of ski jackets to widen and salopettes (ski trousers with shoulder braces) to draw even tighter. These historic developments parallel todays aesthetic ski trend where fashion and image arguably comes before function. For example, PrettyLittleThings models are photographed on fake slopes, holding vintage skis. The glamorous image of the skiing woman lies not only in the clothing but in her stasis. The suggestion is that ski culture does not necessarily require skiing at all: It may simply involve occupying the most visible terrace, Aperol in hand. No wonder then, that so many fast-fashion ski lines for women are deeply impracticalthey appear designed less for physical exertion than for visual consumption. They sell women on the alluring glamour of skiing, while leaving them out in the cold. There is an additional irony here: Climate change means that skiing is becoming increasingly exclusive. Lower-level resorts are closing as the snow line moves up, meaning fewer options and increased demand. In this sense, the image of skiing looks to become even more glamorous via increasing inaccessibility and therefore distance. Fast-fashion has a negative impact on the environment, and the ski aesthetic risks damaging the very thing it claims to celebrate. This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission. Tamsin Johnson is a PhD candidate in visual cultures at Nottingham Trent University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Cmmons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||