Taking place in Las Vegas, the Enhanced Games will host 42 athletes engaged in swimming, weightlifting, and running competitions. A tournament fit for Sin City, some 90% of the participating athletes admittedly use performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), which are otherwise banned for both domestic and international competitions like the Olympics.

These games are organized by Enhanced, which describes itself as a “direct-to-consumer longevity medicine company committed to giving athletes . . . the ability to optimize their health, performance, and recovery.” The company, which went public on May 8, has attracted major investors including Trump Jr.’s 1789 Capital, and billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel.

Dubbed the “Steroid Olympics,” the event will be held in a custom-built arena for around 2,500 invite-only spectators, according to the organizers. The games, which were first announced in 2023, have unsurprisingly received widespread criticism from organizations like the International Olympic Committee and World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). But criticism alone is not stopping the event, which looks to push the limits of human capacity in sports.

The format is simple, with juiced and non-juiced athletes competing to break records and deliver elite performances with $25 million up for grabs.

Despite the surrounding controversy—and risk of being banned from other international competition permanently—some notable athletes are participating, including American sprinter Fred Kerley, American swimmer Cody Miller, and Australian swimmer James Magnussen, all Olympic medalists.

And while this may seem like the Wild West of sports, there are some rules in place. Enhanced athletes are allowed to use only substances approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. While organizers are not releasing specific information on the drug regimens of participating athletes, reports say common substances include human growth hormones, testosterone, testosterone esters, metabolic modulators, Adderall, and more. While these are legal substances, they are banned by WADA.

Some competitors are part of the Enhanced Performance Team, receiving “monthly stipends, coaching, medical oversight, nutritional support, and training camps,” the company’s website says. 

The event will conclude with a concert headlined by the Killers, with performance-enhancing substances like peptides—which have grown dramatically in popularity this year—available for purchase by attendees.

The new film from writer-director Boots Riley follows a group of boosters—shoplifters who resell their stolen clothes—led by aspiring fashion designer Corvette (Keke Palmer). They run amok in a surrealist, color-blocked version of San Francisco, wreaking havoc on a chain of department stores where each location is entirely monochrome. 

“Color is so key, because it helps create worlds,” Shirley Kurata, I Love Boosters‘ costume designer, tells Fast Company. The Oscar-nominated costume designer keeps finding herself depicting the multiverse: For the Best Picture-winning 2022 movie Everything Everywhere All at Once, she costumed characters across dimensions, from the muted realism of everyday life on Earth to a chaotic mishmash of colors and patterns for the film’s mind-bending finale.

Though there’s no dimension-hopping in I Love Boosters, the movie still has clear-cut worlds. There’s the vibrant but corporate monochrome of the Metro Designers department stores, each with its own signature color applied to the walls, the wares, and even the employees. There’s the behind-the-scenes world of villain Christie Smith’s fashion brand, including a Chinese factory where workers are subjected to brutal conditions for next to no pay. And there are the eccentric disguises of the movie’s titular boosters, who embrace different eras and aesthetics to avoid detection.

“There’s multiple worlds in both Everything Everywhere All at Once and I Love Boosters,” Kurata says. “To separate that, I think color is the first thing that really shows that. And so it was probably one of the most important things for me in terms of costume design.”

Hollywood going gray

When the first teaser for I Love Boosters hit social media in January, the internet was immediately obsessed with the film’s in-your-face color scheme. The most liked comment on the movie’s trailer on YouTube reads, “Nice to see that someone remembers that colours exist!!!” 

From Kurata’s costumes to the production design by Christopher Glass and cinematography by Natasha Braier, I Love Boosters offers a stark contrast to the dominant color scheme of modern Hollywood—or rather, the lack thereof.

Moviegoers are apparently fed up with films that verge on grayscale, whether it’s due to lighting, color grading, or production design. Take the reaction to the trailer for Disney’s upcoming live-action Moana remake, which social media users said “sucked up all the color” from the original animated film. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has long been criticized for its flat color palettes, with video essays with titles like “Why Do Marvel’s Movies Look Kind of Ugly?” racking up millions of views. Even films with fantastical settings, like the two-part Wicked series’ famously technicolor world of Oz, have caught flak for being strangely desaturated.

“I always love being part of something that’s an exception to the rule,” Kurata says. Though she thinks muted palettes have their place in cinema, she can’t help but find herself drawn to “hypermaximalist worlds” like that of I Love Boosters. “It taps into this surreal other world that I think is just sometimes more visually appealing, more interesting.”

Creating I Love Boosters’ colorful world was a labor of love. Kurata recalls closely collaborating with production designer Glass to make sure the movie’s many monochrome settings were truly one color, top to bottom.

“To get the right shades of the yellow or the green, I wanted to make sure that I had the actual paint chips,” she explains. “[Glass] actually did send me little painted boards so that I could hold that up with the clothing.”

She and director Riley also worked in tandem to conceptualize the film’s most outrageous outfits. A mid-movie montage shows the central gang of boosters looting store after store, as they dress in a new theme for each looting: neon Kawaii outfits ripped from Tokyo subculture, suits and featureless masks painted with cartoon faces, and head-to-toe floral ensembles that would feel at home in Midsommar.

Moviemaking with a message

I Love Boosters is Riley’s second film, following 2018’s Sorry To Bother You. Both movies are surreal satires with strong anti-capitalist themes. I Love Boosters calls out the fashion industry’s massive waste, inaccessibility, and poor working conditions, all culminating in a finale highlighting the power of collective action.

With a decades-long career as both a stylist and a costume designer, Kurata knows the fashion world’s injustices firsthand.

“I have a pretty broad understanding of all the mechanisms and also the things that are problematic about the industry, which I think this movie addresses so aptly,” she says. “I thought it was important that we do think about fast fashion, about ethical treatment of the workers that are creating the clothes—which are all still very problematic in this day and age.”

Beyond highlighting those issues on screen in I Love Boosters, Kurata made sure her work behind the scenes was in line with the movie’s principles.

For a climactic sequence set at a fashion show, she connected with fashion students at Savannah College of Art and Design, featuring some of their designs on the runway.

“I’m just always a big proponent for supporting up-and-coming designers and showcasing their work whenever I can,” Kurata says. “For me, it’s really important to work on movies that tell an interesting story, but also have a sort of added benefit to society.”

I Love Boosters comes to theaters this Friday, May 22. Check out the trailer below.

The phone in question: a $799 Nothing Phone 3. In a world of interchangeable black mirrors, this is a phone that stands out, hence the puzzled look and question.

From 2007 to today, the smartphone has gone from designer marvel to almost invisible ubiquity. Apple has led the way with 17 generations of its god-like device. Google, Huawei, Samsung, Motorola, and others follow, delivering great cameras, big screens, and strong Android experiences. Devices have come and gone, and big brands like Nokia have fallen along the way. Marketing them, meanwhile, has become an exercise in saying the same thing, slightly louder.

Against this mature market, a brand like Nothing shouldn’t really exist. Ask a management consultant in 2020 if there was room for a new smartphone—when leaders were entrenched and challengers were competing on price—and the answer would likely have been no. But Nothing wasn’t born from a market-sizing exercise, and it is making waves. By the end of 2024, it had doubled annual revenue to over $500 million and crossed $1 billion in lifetime sales, selling around 7 million devices. It has raised over $450 million from leading venture capitalists, valuing the company at $1.3 billion. In some markets, it has taken a 2% share—tiny, but a place to start.

THE VISION

Founded by Carl Pei in London in 2020, the company is built around a clear vision: “As consumer tech companies grow, they often focus on protecting themselves from disruption rather than driving innovation. I felt that if no one tried to challenge that, the category would stay boring forever.”

Personal devices tend to succeed when they clearly belong to a defined mode of life—work, play, create, switch off—or when they create a new “mode” people want to step into. Nothing’s mode is pure disruption; it’s less a product strategy, more a cultural stance. Their bold use of color, striking imagery, and accessible pricing—especially across their audio devices—create differentiation by design.

When asked on LinkedIn about balancing branding versus conversion rates, the CEO simply replied: “Vibes first.”

BUILD FOR THE AUDIENCE

By targeting creative-minded Gen Z, Nothing isn’t chasing the market—it’s choosing its audience and building for them unapologetically—and Pei is living up to that brand.

As a 47-year-old father of two, I’m a long way from their average 26-year-old customer. But I’m surrounded by people buying their products, many for the first time. When asked why, my team came back with variations on one theme: intentional difference. A brand not afraid to have an opinion. An antidote to ubiquity. Something you buy as a statement. The value isn’t just in the spec—it’s in what owning it says about you.

You feel that everywhere you touch the brand. Apple’s website is a masterclass in design, it’s a joy to use. But it’s their vision and everyone else is still playing catch-up to it. This is where many electronics companies go wrong: copying Apple’s minimalism and mistaking restraint for originality.

PERSONALITY MATTERS

Land on nothing.tech and you’re immediately immersed in edgy art direction juxtaposed against striking devices. Product pages mix lifestyle with specs, with a strong point of view. Marketing films sit alongside the product, so you experience it firsthand. A mobile-first approach shows they understand where their audience lives. The contrast with other electronics brands is stark.

It doesn’t stop in the digital realm. Physical stores break norms, blending sci-fi aesthetics with strong industrial design cues to create spaces of intrigue.

Nothing’s brand line is “Built Different.” In 1997, Apple had a similar proposition. And while they still deliver exceptional experiences, it’s not as different as it once was.

I often ask the founders we work with what their nemesis is. It’s a simple question, but it reveals how they see the world and themselves within it.

Nothing has a clear answer. It knows exactly what it is, and what it isn’t.

In a category obsessed with incremental upgrades, Nothing is betting that personality still matters.

And in a world of invisible black mirrors, that clarity is enough to make someone stop mid-conversation and ask: “What is that phone you are holding?”

James Greenfield is CEO and founder at Koto.

Now, polarization online looks a bit different, the class of 2026 is stepping into a country led by the same president who won in 2016, and global conflict and AI have transformed the economy and job market. And last night, the final episode of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert aired on CBS. 

Back in 2015—long before booing commencement speakers for peddling AI was the norm—Colbert gave the graduating class at Wake Forest University a few pointers on how to handle a future filled with what he called a “dark chasm of yawning uncertainty.”

“It is my responsibility, as a commencement speaker, to prepare you for what awaits you in the future,” Colbert told the crowd during his address. “Here it is. No one has any idea what’s going to happen—not even Elon Musk. That’s why he’s building those rockets. He wants a ‘plan B’ on another world.”

At the time, Colbert was just navigating his own version of that uncertainty. After years of playing a caricature on The Colbert Report, he was about to reinvent himself in front of a national audience as the host of The Late Show.

“I just spent many years learning to do one thing really well,” Colbert said. “I got so comfortable with that place, that role, those responsibilities, that it came to define how I saw myself. But now that part of my life is over.

“It’s time to say goodbye to the person we’ve become, we’ve worked so hard to perfect, and to make some crucial decisions. … For me, I’ll have to figure out how to do an hour-long show every night,” Colbert said. “And you, at some point, will have to sleep,” he added jokingly. “I am told the Adderall wears off eventually.”

Colbert gave the class of 2015 tips on how to navigate graduating into an election year—but the advice he shared still rings true today. “You’re gonna have to learn pretty damn quick how to tell the difference between hype and substance,” he said, “to keep folks from selling you things and ideas that aren’t true.”

The comedian went on to tell the grads that they will inevitably face criticism from employers or others throughout their careers. “Having your own standards will help you weather moments like that,” Colbert said. “Having your own standards allows you to perceive success where others may see failure.”

For example, in Colbert’s career, having those standards and self-confidence allowed him to tell “iffy” jokes. “Having my own standards is why I could keep going at times when no one laughed, or when I thought the person I was interviewing might throw a punch at me,” he said.

Colbert’s late-night slot is being filled by Comics Unleashed, created and hosted by comedian-turned-media mogul Byron Allen, who recently added the title of “CEO of Buzzfeed” to his portfolio.

CBS said that the cancellation was driven by finances and not tied to ratings or content. Still, viewers speculated about whether Colbert’s outspoken political voice played any role in the decision to end the franchise.

Through his career, Colbert has interviewed thousands of prominent public figures, from Barack Obama to Paul McCartney. The show averaged 2.7 million viewers during the first quarter of this year, beating out other popular late-night shows. 

“I hope you find the courage to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong,” Colbert said at the end of his 2015 speech. “Please expect as much of the world around you. Try to make the world good according to your standards. It won’t be easy.”

She had been supporting a laboring client for nearly 12 hours. The room was warm, the lights low, the energy focused. But outside, her body told a different story. A sudden wave of heat rose through her chest, her heart began to race, her shirt damp and sticky with sweat. She hadn’t slept well in weeks. The brain fog had been hijacking her daily functions. Still, she took a breath, wiped her face, and walked back in to continue holding space for her client’s imminent birth.

“I know how to guide someone through birth,” she later shared. “No one ever taught me how to move through whatever this is.”

Renee is not alone. Across the United States, women are sustaining the care economy; doulas, midwives, and other birthworkers are entering perimenopause and menopause with very little guidance, limited clinical support, and almost zero structural protection. This gap undermines not only caregiver well-being but the stability of the workforce.

CLOSE THE GAP

Women spend an average of nine years of their lives in poor health, much of it during their working years. More than half of the women’s health gap occurs during this period, shaping productivity, workforce retention, and economic participation. Closing that gap could add at least $1 trillion to the global economy annually by 2040, according to the McKinsey Health Institute.

The care economy is a vast and layered system spanning both paid and uncompensated work. In the U.S., formal sectors like healthcare, childcare, and long-term care account for several trillion dollars in annual economic activity. Meanwhile, unpaid caregiving—largely performed by women—adds trillions more in hidden value that isn’t captured in GDP. These systems underpin the broader economy, supporting workforce participation, productivity, and population health, yet remain structurally undervalued and underinvested relative to their impact.

As the individuals buttressing the care economy face increasing strain, the lack of reproductive health resources threatens the stability of a workforce already stretched to capacity. Without critical investment in midlife care, we risk losing experienced birthworkers and caregivers who are vital to supporting families and sustaining communities.

THE MENOPAUSE CONNECTION

We saw this firsthand at Flourish, a wellness retreat hosted by Mama Glow during Minority Health Month for women in midlife, centering Black women and birthworkers. What unfolded over the weekend was not only restoration but recognition. Many participants arrived carrying questions they previously didn’t have space to ask.

“I thought something was wrong with me,” one attendee shared. A longtime birthworker described the tension of continuing to show up for clients while feeling increasingly disconnected from her own body. “I didn’t realize this was perimenopause. I’ve been pushing through exhaustion for years and navigating this transition in silence.”

Several described visiting clinicians with symptoms like fatigue, sleep disruption, and mood changes, yet never connected them to perimenopause. Without the language to name what was happening, they kept pushing through.

These stories point to a gap that business leaders and health innovators can no longer afford to ignore.

Menopause is often framed as a private experience. In reality, it is an experience that is quietly shaping the stability of entire workforce sectors. In the corporate setting, menopause has been linked to decreased productivity and increased attrition. In the care economy, the stakes are even higher.

Investment in menopause remains disproportionately focused on consumer solutions rather than comprehensive care. While the market opportunity is widely recognized, the infrastructure required to support real people still lags behind.

A WORKFORCE PRIORITY

What would it look like to take menopause seriously as a workforce priority?

It would mean expanding access to clinicians trained in menopause care, particularly for communities that have historically been marginalized within the healthcare system as these individuals are most impacted by menopause symptoms. It would mean designing workplace policies that include flexible scheduling, menopause leave, and resources for midlife health, ensuring workers can navigate transitions without jeopardizing their careers. It would mean investing in community-based care models, where trust and cultural alignment are essential for optimal wellbeing. Listening to the lived experiences of birthworkers and caregivers navigating menopause can inform policies and practices that truly meet their needs.

Culturally, we don’t simply need relief, but a reframing. Midlife is not something to endure quietly but a stage of life that deserves attention, resources, and ultimately, care. If we continue to ignore menopause, we risk further destabilizing the caregiving workforce. But if we invest in this major life event, we can strengthen the systems that support families, communities, and future generations. Supporting caregivers through menopause is more than an investment in their well-being. It is an investment in the resilience of the care economy itself. That truth is a blueprint for the future of work, one that values health, equity, and sustainability.

Latham Thomas is founder and CEO of Mama Glow. Leona Hariharan is a medical student at UCSF.

Los Angeles magazine recently released its special election issue featuring mayoral candidates Nithya Raman and Spencer Pratt posing for the cover.

The choice seems obvious—local political candidates for an election issue—except the cover did not actually feature Raman and Pratt, but rather AI-generated versions of them.

As a whole, the cover looks like an obvious AI-generated collage, with Raman leaning into Pratt, and the flag of Ghana next to a burning landscape of Los Angeles in the background.

“The cover is fake. The crisis is real,” L.A. magazine said of the cover on X, aiming to paint the image as a deliberate and assertive editorial decision.

“Whether you love it, hate it, question it, or can’t stop looking at it . . . this is the L.A. we’re living in,” the publication continued.

Still, many observers weren’t convinced—or happy.

“Every time someone tries to use AI in a subversive or countercultural or ‘highbrow’ way, it looks the exact same as Facebook slop,” content creator Matt Bernstein said in a response on X. “Hire a damn artist.”

Many echoed the sentiment, calling on the publication to hire humans to design the magazine’s visuals.

“Why use AI? Real pictures of these people exist. A graphic designer could’ve done this cover relatively quickly. This type of shit is why people don’t fuck with LA mag,” a user said on X.

Another one added: “It’s funny because by using these AI pictures that don’t look like either of the candidates, it seems like the crisis is as manufactured as the cover.”

According to Page Six Hollywood, the man behind the cover is none other than the magazine’s co-owner, defense attorney Mark Geragos, who bought the media outlet in 2022. Staffers in the editorial department reportedly pushed back against the idea of using AI for the cover. And still, the image made it across the finish line.

Fast Company reached out to Los Angeles magazine for comment.

The controversial image shows more than just the mayoral candidates, with small Easter eggs scattered throughout. For instance, Raman’s jewelry has a charm that says “DSA,” for Democratic Socialists of America. Pratt has a similar charm necklace, but shaped instead as a garbage can, a reference to the candidate’s viral “take out the trash” campaign videos.

Despite such little details, the cover did not land with audiences online.

“Understood that you’re making a point about how AI is influencing this election, but IMO a reputable print publication should hire an artist for a fictional cover,” one user said on X. “IMO, this AI cover damages your reputation.”

While most reactions focused on the use of artificial intelligence for the cover, some used the viral moment as an opportunity to share how the publication’s origins don’t match its current direction.

“Not wading into the AI wars,” one user shared alongside pictures of classic L.A. magazine covers from back in the day, “but a gentle reminder that 1960s-era Los Angeles magazine was known for its striking cover art, painted by real artists.”

It was seemingly so popular, in fact, that its hobbyist nature couldn’t keep up with the demand. The service struggled to juggle all the requests we (and other enchantingly informed internet-dwellers) sent its way. I lost count of the number of emails I received from readers who were wondering why their requests to the service were taking longer and longer to result in any action—if any action ever even occurred.

That tool was a simple email-based offering called Snitcher Space​. Its purpose was to provide an easy way to forward over any email you open and, in a matter of moments, get back an intelligent analysis of how likely the email was to be legitimate vs. some sort of scam.

My friend and fellow fraud-abhorrer, I’m happy to share that the service is now back and better than ever—under a new name and identity, and with a substantially upgraded infrastructure beneath it—and ready to serve you properly.

This tip originally appeared in the free Cool Tools newsletter from The Intelligence. Get the next issue in your inbox and get ready to discover all sorts of awesome tech treasures!

Your instant email scam scanner—take two

Allow me to introduce you to a powerfully revamped tool now known as EML Scanner​.

➜ EML Scanner picks up right where its predecessor left off—and so far, at least, it’s been working impressively well for me.

⌚ It takes a total of a minute or two to start using.

✅ And you actually don’t even have to leave your inbox to do it:

• The next time you see something in your email that seems suspicious—or that you just aren’t entirely sure how much to trust—forward it to scan@emlscanner.com.
• Moments later, you’ll get a reply back from that same address with an in-depth analysis of the email and how safe and reputable it seems.

In my experiences with the service so far, the analysis has been coming back in under a minute. It’s almost instantaneous.

And it’s both delightfully detailed and refreshingly transparent about what it does and doesn’t know. In one test I tried with a marketing email I’d gotten from a tech news site, for instance, it noted that the sender identity was verifiable, the web links it presented were actually associated with the same organization—no “similar enough to be passable” URL tomfoolery—and it didn’t exhibit any signs of common scam patterns.

The analysis even included a suggested action, saying I could safely interact with the email and click through to accept the offer if I were interested.

For another test, I forwarded over an email I’d received that appeared to be about a SiriusXM class action settlement I was eligible to benefit from. There, the service was far less confident in its conclusions.

I can’t even begin to tell you how much I appreciate that honesty about the uncertainty of the verdict. With current-day AI tools in particular, there’s a troubling tendency for systems to act confident even when they don’t actually know what they’re talking about. EML Scanner, as you can see here, simply tells you what it does and doesn’t know and then makes a sensible suggestion based on that reality.

All you’ve gotta do is remember that address, scan@emlscanner.com—or add it into your contacts for even easier ongoing access—and then forward anything over for analysis, anytime you’re unsure.

• EML Scanner works entirely via email, by forwarding suspicious-seeming messages to scan@emlscanner.com.
• It’s free for up to one email a day. If you need more than that, you can ​pay 20 bucks a year and up​ to increase the limit—but for most common personal purposes, one a day will hopefully be plenty.
• The service’s privacy policy is crystal-clear about the fact that EML Scanner deletes all emails immediately after they’re analyzed, doesn’t store or share any sort of personal data, and doesn’t use any of your info for training, advertising, or any commercial purposes.

Treat yourself to all sorts of brain-boosting goodies like this with the free Cool Tools newsletter—starting with an instant introduction to an incredible audio app that’ll tune up your days in truly delightful ways.

This week, both Starbucks and Pizza Hut made headlines for negative news about their internal applications of artificial intelligence. At Starbucks, an inventory tool got the chop after making frequent counting mistakes, while at Pizza Hut, a delivery tool drove a franchisee to file a lawsuit.

Social media users are saying the two stories may point to a larger trend—that for the first time in the AI era, more companies will pull away from AI than embrace it.

Starbucks walks back an AI tool

On Monday, Starbucks told employees it was retiring an inventory-counting tool powered by AI after the technology led to inaccurate counts and mislabeled products.

“Starting today, Automated Counting will be retired,” said an internal company newsletter verified by Reuters. “Beverage components and milk will now be counted the same way you count other inventory categories in your coffeehouse.”

In a statement to Fast Company, a spokesperson for Starbucks explained that the company’s choice to axe its Automated Counting tool is in line with its larger AI strategy, which is based on trial and error. “We test ideas in our coffeehouses, listen closely to partner feedback, and make changes to deliver a better, more consistent experience.”

Starbucks’s move to ditch one AI tool doesn’t mean the company is forgoing the technology entirely. The company is still investing in internal AI applications, including an AI assistant for baristas called Green Dot Assist and an AI-powered order-sequencing system called Smart Queue. The brand is also experimenting with an integrated Starbucks app within ChatGPT.

Pizza Hut’s delivery system backfires

Where Starbucks’s choice to nix its AI tool came from the top down, the anti-AI sentiment at Pizza Hut started with a disgruntled franchisee.

In a lawsuit filed on May 6, franchisee Chaac Pizza Northeast, which operates more than 100 Pizza Hut locations, alleged that the company forced it to adopt an AI tool called Dragontail, which inadvertently pushed average wait times from under 30 minutes to over 45 minutes in more than half of all orders.

The complaint explained that the issue wasn’t with Dragontail itself, but with the information the tool provided to DoorDash drivers. Dragontail is meant to optimize food delivery by giving delivery drivers real-time updates on order preparations and timing. But according to the lawsuit, its implementation in 2024 caused “cascading operational breakdowns and customer dissatisfaction,” resulting in more than an estimated $100 million in lost business and enterprise value.

Reportedly, once DoorDash drivers could see the real-time status of multiple orders through Dragontail, they would wait inside restaurants until multiple orders were ready, meaning some orders were being held for up to 15 minutes after they were ready for delivery.

Because Chaac Pizza Northeast relies on DoorDash for all of its deliveries, the franchisee alleged that the forced change to its delivery model had a major impact on its sales. At its New York City locations, Chaac said its sales swung from positive 10.19% to negative 9.78% after implementing Dragontail.

“With the intention to improve efficiency and service to the customer, Dragontail did the exact opposite,” the lawsuit stated. “It caused significant delays and pummeled consumer satisfaction.”

Pizza Hut has not responded to Fast Company’s request for comment.

Social media sees a trend

With the stories from Starbucks and Pizza Hut breaking in quick succession, social media users are drawing connections between the two food service chains’ AI troubles.

“Over the next 1-2 years we’re going to start hearing more reports about companies pulling back from AI than adopting AI, and markets aren’t ready,” one X user theorized.

“The AI bubble might burst quicker than I thought,” echoed another.

“You’re going to be hearing a lot more about forced AI integration and what a disaster it is for businesses and consumers,” a third user agreed.

Other users pointed out that all of these problems could have been avoided if tasks hadn’t incorporated AI in the first place. “To err is human,” one person quipped, “but to really screw things up, you need a computer.”

New research on millions of actual higher education student interactions in digital course materials suggests that the answer lies in a deceptively simple idea: active reading (and in AI designed to support it, not replace it).

Active reading is a well‑established concept in learning science. It describes how effective readers interact with text: testing their understanding, highlighting key ideas, asking questions, taking notes, and revisiting challenging concepts. These behaviors are strongly associated with better comprehension, retention, and academic performance. Reading, after all, is not a passive act. It is cognitive work.

AI TOOLS CAN ENGAGE STUDENTS

Yet digital learning environments, and now many AI tools, too often encourage the opposite: Skimming. Outsourced thinking. Letting the machine do the synthesis and interpretation work for the learner.

An analysis of nearly 80 million student interactions across Pearson eTextbooks aligned to college courses over two semesters helps us understand how students actually behave when AI tools are built responsibly into learning materials. The findings were striking. Students who used these AI study tools were dramatically more likely to engage in active reading behaviors than those who did not.

When students used AI study tools in their eTextbook, they were three times more likely than non-users to be active readers. Further, the data showed that students who used AI tools built into instructor-led digital platforms with assessment features and other interactive tools were over 20 times more likely to be classified as active readers, compared to non-users.

This matters because reading remains one of the strongest predictors of college success, and because readiness is declining. National data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that fewer than two-thirds of incoming students are prepared for college‑level reading, while faculty report growing struggles with close reading and analysis. The challenge is not access to content, but engagement with it.

What distinguishes effective learning AI from the wave of general-purpose apps is intent. AI-enabled reading features designed with learning science in mind do more than generate immediate answers to homework questions. They offer struggling readers short, accessible summaries of the text to aid in comprehension; they provide clarification on confusing concepts; and they offer students the opportunity to practice retrieving information from memory, which we know is beneficial for long-term retention. In other words, it augments human learning.

RESPONSIBLE AI LOOKS DIFFERENT

This is where many consumer AI tools fall short. They are impressive at generating text and images, but indifferent to whether learning occurs. Without trusted content or pedagogical design, speed becomes the goal; depth becomes collateral damage.

Responsible AI in education looks different. It is transparent. It is trained and evaluated against expert-vetted content. And it is embedded within high-quality, trusted content that instructors and institutions already rely on. When AI is designed this way, it pulls students back into reading.

The future of education will undoubtedly be shaped by AI. But the most important innovation is using technology to help students do the hard, essential work of learning more effectively.

If AI can turn passive consumption into active engagement, it will change what students are capable of understanding and it will change outcomes. That’s the result we should all be pursuing.

Tom ap Simon is the president of Pearson Higher Education and Virtual Learning

In addition to moving up the ranks for travelers considering future ticket purchases, the Atlanta-based airline also landed at the No. 1 spot for quality and beat out the three other largest U.S. carriers—American, United, and Southwest Airlines—for satisfaction among current and former travelers. 

Those two particular rankings made for a “really banner year” for Delta, said John Newell, field marketing manager for YouGov, while discussing the results of the annual survey on a conference call. Kenton Barello, a senior vice president with YouGov, added that Delta has “done a phenomenal job in terms of entering the consumer mindset, staying strong, building on that consideration.”

Even so, American travelers have taken a liking to foreign carriers, with Emirates, Singapore Airlines, and Qatar Airways topping the ranking of airlines for customer satisfaction. Only two U.S. carriers—Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines—made the top 10 in that category.

Still, the YouGov results, which are based on a survey of more than 23,000 consumers, are yet another feather in the cap for Delta. For the fourth straight year, Delta was the top-ranked airline for customer satisfaction in the premium economy segment and came in second for satisfaction in the first/business class segment and the economy/basic economy segment of the annual J.D. Power North America airline satisfaction study released earlier this month.

FRONTIER’S POTENTIAL AS THE NEXT SPIRIT

The YouGov survey also highlighted some of the likely fallout from the collapse of Spirit Airlines, which occurred earlier this month. Among all carriers, including regional and international airlines, Spirit was the only one to see a decline in customer satisfaction from the 2025 study. 

That dip in customer satisfaction was “likely a contributing factor” in the company’s decision to cease operations, Newell noted. 

But Spirit’s demise may offer some hope for other carriers, as the YouGov study found that Southwest, Frontier Airlines, and JetBlue Airways are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries—though Frontier may have some work ahead to improve customer satisfaction, as it ranked only ahead of Spirit. 

“It’s an area [Frontier is] going to want to focus on,” Newell said. “Frontier is an airline that makes sense to be a potential really big player for those fliers who are looking for the budget airline experience.”

Obsession, written and directed by Curry Barker, follows Bear (played by Michael Johnston) as he uses a mysterious, supernatural One Wish Willow toy to make his crush, Nikki (Inde Navarrette), fall in love with him. However, he soon discovers it comes with shockingly sinister and scary results. 

The movie was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) last fall and was acquired by Focus Features shortly after in a deal reportedly worth more than $14 million. It also screened at South by Southwest (SXSW) in Austin earlier this year before getting a wider release last week, opening to an impressive $17 million at the box office against a modest budget of $750,000. 

Jason Cassidy, vice chairman of Focus Features, said that when he watched the film at a midnight screening at TIFF, he immediately loved it.

“It’s got something to say, and there’s a real thoughtfulness to it,” Cassidy told Fast Company. “There’s something going on behind the movie in a way that feels interesting and different, and those are the kind of movies that we want to be known for.”

“Putting them right in the story”

Ahead of its wide release, the studio launched a marketing campaign full of real-world and digital elements to generate early hype for the film. One example was bringing the One Wish Willow to life, including a website that sold the toy and a 30-second commercial with a jingle.

According to Focus Features, the video surpassed 5 million views across platforms, and the product sold out within hours. 

A specialty store and themed vending machines were also deployed across Los Angeles for a limited time so fans could get the item in real life.

“It is the jumping point in the movie that leads to everything else,” Cassidy said. “It’s immersed in giving them something to own, but also putting them right in the story in a way that feels just very authentic to that experience.”

He said it’s also been fun seeing the traction the products have gained on social media. Across Instagram and TikTok, influencers and fans have created their own videos using the toy.

“We thought it was a blast, and it created a lot of social momentum because people were cracking them open and posting their wishes online,” Cassidy said. “That was one way to create some of that social momentum and serve fans by igniting their passion and engaging them, which is so vital to opening movies today.”

Another part of the campaign included bringing the character of Nikki to life through a fictional text line, via the messaging platform Community, where fans could text the number and receive custom voice notes from Nikki.

The notes were actually voiced by Navarrette. Focus Features reported that the text line has generated around 70,000 subscribers so far. 

“[It] brought her as a character and the movie to life in a way that was unexpected for people,” Cassidy said. “When you can be unexpected like that, it can really be sticky.”

To further bring Nikki to life, the studio installed interactive billboards in high-traffic areas of New York City and Los Angeles that featured the number of the text line, as well as what appeared to be handwritten love notes.

Throughout the day, the notes changed and became increasingly unsettling—matching the creepy and chaotic tone of the movie as the plot progresses. 

“You’ve got a couple billboards that every other day become a little more unhinged, and if you’re paying attention, it makes you lean in more,” Cassidy said. “It’s a way to give fans something they can talk about, that they can own, that is juicy for them and they can take delight in.”

The success of Obsession so far falls in line with the larger trend of how the horror genre has continued to become popular with moviegoers, especially younger audiences.

According to research from Greenlight Analytics, the film nearly doubled its awareness for audiences under the age of 35 ahead of its prerelease week, led largely by women in that demographic.

Cassidy noted that, alongside Barker’s established fan base, Jason Blum and his company, Blumhouse Productions, served as a production partner and executive producer, helping the film connect with contemporary horror audiences.

“Blum has that reach into the broader horror audience, which absolutely enabled us to extend our tentacles with this one,” he said.

But Cassidy reiterated that it’s Barker’s fan base that really helped with igniting the young fans. Focus Features worked closely with Barker on the campaign, and when the marketing team pitched the idea of bringing the One Wish Willow toy to life, the writer-director collaborated with them every step of the way.

Barker is known as part of the YouTube sketch comedy and horror duo “That’s a Bad Idea,” along with Cooper Tomlinson (who also stars in Obsession). In 2024, Barker self-released his feature-length directorial debut on YouTube for free. Milk & Serial, a found-footage horror film, was shot on an $800 budget.

“What’s so great about Curry is he’s so native to his digital world and he knows his voice and his community, and we absolutely wanted to tap into that,” Cassidy said. “This is a group that has been online their whole life and likes to participate in stuff, and that’s vital to the experience of this.”

In a way, it’s maybe a dream—a wish—come true for Barker, who at the age of 26 is already seeing such early success for his debut feature film. 

“It’s been a surreal experience,” Barker said. “You spend years making something and then suddenly you’re watching people all over the world talk about it, engaging with it, and giving it a life of its own. Seeing the One Wish Willows in real life, and selling out in less than 24 hours, is a highlight.”

Earlier this year, it was reported that Anything but Ghosts, another movie from Barker, starring Aaron Paul, will be distributed by Focus Features and is being produced by Blumhouse-Atomic. Barker is also set to write and direct the upcoming reboot of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre for A24. 

“It’s really exciting discovering Curry and talent like him,” Cassidy said. “He’s a filmmaker that is breaking into the world in such a giant way.”

This story was updated to reflect more accurate reporting on the acquisition price of Obsession and the deal for Anything but Ghosts.

The findings, which were published on Monday in the Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities, looked at how much heat two Arizona data centers were giving off in the Phoenix area—a hot spot for data center growth in the U.S.

Researchers looked at a 36-megawatt facility in Mesa and a larger 169-megawatt data center campus in nearby Chandler. They found that not only were air temperatures warmer in downwind neighborhoods, but the heat also extended a third of a mile out from the data centers.

“As we do more measurements under different kinds of atmospheric conditions, I think we’re going to see more significant impacts around data centers,” said David Sailor, the study’s lead author and director of Arizona State’s School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning. “They are such a concentrated load of electricity consumption, and hence heat emissions, that we became concerned about the impact that they could have locally, and also in the downwind neighborhoods.”

Urban “heat islands” are making already-warm American cities like Phoenix unbearably hot, as buildings, roads, and sidewalks radiate far more heat than grass and trees. In rural and suburban areas—as well as cities—the exhaust air from data centers’ cooling systems is about 14 to 25 degrees warmer than the outside air, according to the study. To put this in perspective, a single facility can release the equivalent yearly waste heat of 40,000 U.S. households.

Meanwhile, a previous study published in March, led by U.K. researchers, found that data centers were increasing land temperatures by up to 16 degrees, potentially affecting some 340 million people globally.

Environmentalists argue that data centers, which are needed to power artificial intelligence, impact surrounding communities in a number of other ways, too, including raising energy demand and utility bills, draining water supplies, and creating pollution, often in lower-income areas that suffer disproportionately—all while Big Tech reaps the benefits.

I laughed at first, but the more I sat with it, the more it felt like a reflection of what’s already happening inside a lot of organizations, whether they’ve formally acknowledged it or not.

According to McKinsey, 88% of organizations regularly use AI in at least one business function. It’s clear that AI isn’t sitting off to the side anymore. It’s being embedded in the work we do.

THURSD-AI

At Quantious, we see this every week in our internal “Thursd-AI” sessions. What started as a casual forum for sharing prompts has turned into something more practical: people showing how they’re actually using AI inside real workflows.

One marketing producer set up an AI agent to automate competitive research that used to take hours. A project lead uses it to build out project timelines. By just providing start and end dates and describing the work to be done, it builds out all milestones and shares the timeline with the team for approval. Individually, the gains are small, but collectively they’ve started to provide the team with more breathing room for creativity.

And that’s why the org chart idea stuck with me. It’s less about the title and more about the formal recognition that AI is becoming part of the operating model.

3 REASONS TO DEFINE AI ROLES

More teams are defining distinct roles AI performs across their business. These are three reasons why it actually makes sense.

1. AI IS ALREADY IN THE WORKFLOW

AI isn’t experimental anymore; for many teams it’s just how work gets done. It’s embedded in everyday tasks like summarizing meetings, drafting content, and analyzing data.

AI Adoption has been relatively fast. Roughly 55% of U.S. adults are already using generative AI, a faster adoption curve than both the internet and personal computers at the same stage.

Inside organizations, it’s even more embedded. Ninety-one percent of companies reported using at least one AI technology in 2024, and employees using it regularly report saving as much as 7.5 hours a week on routine tasks.

Those hours are saved in faster research, cleaner drafts, and fewer hours wrestling with spreadsheets. None of that eliminates the work, but it does compress the very mechanical parts of it.

2. AI FLUENCY IS QUICKLY BECOMING TABLE STAKES FOR THE WORKPLACE

What’s been interesting to watch is that the people getting the most value from AI are rarely the most technical. They’re the most curious.

Someone experiments with a prompt that saves them an hour a week. Someone else builds on it and finds a faster way to analyze a dataset. Before long, the whole team is using a smarter, more efficient workflow.

The advantage compounds when teams share what they’re learning.

That matters, because there’s a growing gap between organizations that treat AI as an occasional tool and those that treat it as a capability. Research shows that leaders and managers already use generative AI several times a week at far higher rates than frontline employees, which is why many companies are now focusing on building broader AI fluency across their teams.

The companies moving fastest aren’t just buying AI tools. They’re building a culture where employees are encouraged to be curious, experiment, share their workflows, and figure out what actually improved the work.

3. AI CLEARS SPACE FOR THE WORK HUMANS SHOULD ACTUALLY BE DOING

The anxiety continues over whether AI will replace certain skills. But what we’re seeing in practice is a little different.

When AI handles the tedious parts of the work we do—the formatting, the summarizing, the first drafts—it frees people up to spend more time where human judgement really matters. Strategy, creativity, and storytelling are the work that really pushes companies forward.

The more AI takes over the mechanical pieces of knowledge work, the more important those human capabilities become. So, the real leadership question is whether the organization is learning how to use it in a way that actually improves the work.

WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE?

Inside of our own workflows at Quantious, AI is showing up in a few places.

Research. Tools like Perplexity and Waldo help us synthesize industry news, identify emerging competitors, and cut through noise faster than traditional search.

Data work. ChatGPT helps our team members to write complex Excel formulas, a task that only the spreadsheet experts on our team would be able to do. What used to be tedious spreadsheet wrangling can now be achieved with a simple natural language prompt.

Brand voice. After our brand refresh, we trained a custom GPT on our voice and messaging guidelines. It helps us maintain consistency across everything from blog posts to press materials.

None of this replaces the thinking and judgement our (human) team brings to the work. We’ll all just have to get used to AI taking a few spots on the org chart. They just don’t get invited to the team offsite.

Lisa Larson-Kelley is founder and CEO of Quantious.

The project—called Stratos but also referred to as Wonder Valley—would be 40,000 acres, or roughly double the size of Manhattan. It could consume up to 9 GW of power, which is more than double the entire state’s average electricity use.

That is, if it ever gets built.

Right now, the reality of a 9 GW Utah data center doesn’t seem all that likely to Olivia Wang, a research analyst at Sightline Climate, an energy transition intelligence firm.

Or at least, she says, not “at anything close” to the scale currently being talked about.

“There is no precedent for a developer pulling off an off-grid project of this size yet,” Wang says via email, “and the project has none of the building blocks in place that would make us think otherwise.”

Sightline Climate has analyzed proposed data center projects previously. The company has more than 1,000 hyperscale data center projects around the world in its pipeline database, and scores them on certain factors to predict if they’ll actually get built.

Right now, Wang says, the model puts the likelihood of Wonder Valley actually materializing at “roughly 15%.”

‘Wonder Valley comes up short’

Sightline Climate looks at factors including how far along the data center project is in development, if power has been sourced and financing secured, whether any tenants have signed on, and so on.

“Wonder Valley comes up short on every single one at the moment,” Wang says. 

Despite reporting by The Logic that said construction would start this year, with a first operating phase by 2027, there is no construction activity yet. The Stratos Project website currently says that Phase 1 construction will occur from 2026 to 2028. 

The full buildout, including the 9 GW of capacity and about 90 data center buildings, is listed on the timeline under “2030+.” 

Though O’Leary told the Desert News that “we’ve got tenants knocking on our door,” there’s not yet public information about any tenants signed on. 

Wang adds that, to her knowledge, no power contracts have been signed and financing hasn’t been secured.

O’Leary’s company, O’Leary Digital, formed a joint venture with developer West GenCo on the project in February 2026, but that developer doesn’t seem to have a prior track record of delivering data center infrastructure. (Fast Company could not find a website or LinkedIn page for West GenCo, or even mentions of it separate from O’Leary.)

O’Leary Digital did not respond to a request for comments about these factors or timeline. 

Project dates are getting harder to trust

Those are fundamental steps to getting a data center built that so far seem to be missing. But there are also “structural headwinds” that Wonder Valley faces that have stalled all sorts of data projects previously.

Though the data center boom, spurred by the expanding use of AI, doesn’t seem to be slowing down, not every project is likely to materialize. 

A Sightline Climate report from February, authored by Wang, estimated that 30% to 50% of the 2026 pipeline is “unlikely to come online before the end of the year.” 

“Projected delivery dates are getting harder to trust,” the report reads. “In 2025, 26% of expected capacity slipped, and another 10% of projects pushed back their commercial operation dates without much notice.”

Power is one of the biggest bottlenecks. For Wonder Valley specifically, the project plans to run entirely off-grid, but Wang notes that no air permit has been filed with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 

“Developers need to monitor air quality for a full year before they can even submit an application,” she noted, and the department commissioner has told the Standard-Examiner that it could take two years for the Stratos development to get those approvals.

“That makes O’Leary’s claim that the first gigawatt could be online within two years difficult to square with basic math,” she adds. 

Data center opposition drives cancellations

The next big headwind is the growing data center opposition. 

This opposition isn’t totally new. Between March and June of 2025, 20 data center projects, representing about $98 billion in investments, were blocked or delayed, according to Data Center Watch. There were multiple cases in which local opposition was reported to have played some role.

But it isn’t slowing down. A Gallup poll from May 13 found that seven in 10 Americans oppose constructing AI data centers in their areas; 48% of Americans are “strongly opposed.”

Wonder Valley specifically has been the source of much local contention. Residents have demonstrated against the project in person, and its water rights application was pulled after Utahns filed nearly 4,000 protests against the application. 

“Several cite concerns about Utah’s drought and the declining Great Salt Lake,” The Salt Lake Tribune reported. 

Opposition “of this scale” has been driving project cancellations nationwide, Wang says. “We have tracked over 40 new moratorium proposals across the U.S. in just the past two months.”

Wang isn’t the only one who thinks Wonder Valley may not actually come to fruition.

Tech writer Ed Zitron has noted that “Nobody has built a 1GW data center,” so he doubts that O’Leary could build a 9GW one (or “do anything other than create another scandal and lose a bunch of people’s money,” he wrote).

Zitron has said it’s difficult to even get a sense of how much data center capacity hyperscalers are actually building. To him, this adds evidence to the idea that the AI data center boom is really just a bubble.

—Jake Offenhartz, Associated Press

The grocer did not provide dates for the planned openings but confirmed the new stores will be at the following locations:

• Arizona: Phoenix (21001 North Tatum Boulevard, Suite 1030)
• Florida: Sarasota (8199 S Tamiami Trail, Unit 100)
• Illinois: Chicago (804 West Montrose Ave.)
• Massachusetts: Quincy (111 General McConville Way)
• Michigan: Farmington Hills (27658 Middlebelt Rd.)
• New York: Syracuse (3515 West Genesee St.)
• New York: Yonkers (2482 Central Park Ave.)
• Ohio: University Heights (2643 Warrensville Center Rd.)
• Utah: West Jordan (5561 W 7800 S.)

Last month, Trader Joe’s announced it would open 18 new stores across 12 states. Those openings included locations in Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, Utah, and Washington. 

Trader Joe’s expansion isn’t new, but it does seem to be building momentum. In 2025, the grocer opened around 30 new stores, bringing its total number of locations to more than 600. This year, the chain has already announced 25 new locations. 

But while it’s more likely than ever that you may soon have a Trader Joe’s in your neighborhood, there are still a handful of states that don’t yet have one to call their own. Trader Joe’s stores haven’t yet made their way to Alaska, Hawaii, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, or Wyoming.

Around one-third of the company’s stores are in its home state of California.

Final broadcast is filled with surprises

Colbert’s monologue was interrupted by Bryan Cranston, Paul Rudd and Tim Meadows, who all pretended to be irked that they weren’t the host’s final guest. “You know what? You got what you deserved,” Meadows fumed. Other celebrities in the audience who had funny turns during Colbert’s last “Meanwhile” segment were Tig Notaro and Ryan Reynolds.

Later, Colbert joined Elvis Costello, former bandleader Jon Batiste and current bandleader Louis Cato for a relaxed performance of Costello’s “Jump Up.” They all joined the house band and McCartney for the final song of the night, a performance of “Hello, Goodbye.”

Staffers and audience members — including Colbert’s wife, Evie McGee Colbert — then swarmed the stage as Colbert gave the honor to McCartney to turn off the building’s power. The theater then gets sucked into a vortex and turns into a snow globe.

Guests in the final week included Michael Keaton, Jon Stewart, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Steven Spielberg, David Byrne and Bruce Springsteen, while there’s been a wacky version of “It’s Raining Men” remade into “It’s Raining Fish.”

On Wednesday night, Colbert was on the other end of his “The Colbert Questionnaire,” asked things like which sandwich is best and whether apples are better than oranges. Mark Hamill, Martha Stewart, Ben Stiller and Robert De Niro were some of the questioners.

David Letterman, the show’s host when it debuted in 1993, joined Colbert on the roof of the theater to hurl furniture from the set — a nod to one of Letterman’s classic stunts.

Colbert’s show ends after 11 seasons

CBS announced last summer that Colbert’s show would end, citing economic reasons after 11 seasons. But Colbert was the ratings leader in late-night TV. Many — including Colbert — expressed skepticism that President Donald Trump’s repeated criticism of the show wasn’t a factor. Trump’s name on Thursday never came up.

The decision to shutter the show came after parent company Paramount’s $16 million settlement of Trump’s lawsuit over a “60 Minutes” interview as Paramount awaited his administration’s approval of a pending sale to Skydance Media. Colbert had called it a “big fat bribe.” On Thursday, he showed a clip of a sympathetic dolphin clicking with the subtitle: “It was a financial decision.”

During the “Meanwhile” segment, Colbert mentioned that the owner of some music used in the “Peanuts” animated specials had grown litigious. Just then, the band started playing “Peanuts” music. “Oh, no, I hope this doesn’t cost CBS any money,” the host said.

The final show seemed to be marred by technical snafus, with stray sounds and glitches. Later Colbert encountered the reason in a pretaped bit — an interdimensional wormhole that astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson helpfully explained was opened because a top rated show could also been canceled.

Jon Stewart also made an appearance, explaining the wormhole was a metaphor, and Colbert reunited with his fellow late night hosts Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, John Oliver and Seth Meyers. Elijah Woods was present for a “The Lord of the Rings” joke.

Jimmy Kimmel and Jimmy Fallon ran reruns on Thursday

Colbert’s chief rivals, ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and NBC’s “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon,” both ran reruns on Thursday. Kimmel urged viewers to tune into Colbert’s goodbye and then stop watching CBS.

CBS will fill “The Late Show” slot with “Comics Unleashed,” in which comedians share stories. Host Byron Allen has vowed to avoid politics.

Colbert’s goodbye — running some 17 minutes over — was ambitious in a way that other TV late night finales were not. Johnny Carson wrapped up his stint on “The Tonight Show” in 1992 without any celebrity guests, just offering classic clips. Jay Leno had Billy Crystal and Garth Brooks aboard his final goodbye in 2014. Celebrities like Steve Martin, Chris Rock and Tina Fey participated in David Letterman’s last Top 10 list for a 2015 finale that also included Foo Fighters playing “Everlong.”

Colbert’s 11 seasons bridged the rise of Trump and his return to the White House, the pandemic, the fall of Joe Biden, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States Capitol under attack in 2021 and the rise of Artificial Intelligence.

“At a time when algorithms are shaping so much of what people see, hear and even believe, Stephen has been a touchstone shared by millions,” former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a video tribute. “His satiric voice, backed by what is clearly a deep moral core and a love of this country, has had a way of cutting through the noise and helping show us who we are as a country.”

—Mark Kennedy, AP Entertainment Writer

According to a new report from Realtor.com, both new home listings and contract signings just hit their highest level in four years. That surge in springtime activity is a sign that the real estate market might be becoming unstuck after years weighed down by the high interest rates that took root this time in 2022.

“For the first time in three years, we’re seeing contract signing growth that genuinely outpaces the trend of the recent past,” Jake Krimmel, senior economist at Realtor.com, said in the report. “Buyers have been sidelined but they haven’t disappeared—they’ve simply been waiting for the right conditions.” 

Krimmel says that buyers are looking ready to take the leap in markets where sellers are being realistic about pricing. “That supply-demand-price alignment is what separates a dynamic market from a stagnant one, and we’re beginning to see it take hold in a meaningful way,” Krimmel said.

By looking at new listings together with contract signings, you can get a picture of how the housing market’s inherent push and pull is going. Now, those two halves of the market are both moving in a positive direction in tandem rather than working against each other—a difficult dynamic that can lead to the stagnation we’ve seen in recent years.

According to the new data, contract signings are up 2.9% this year so far compared with 2025. New signed contracts are growing more quickly than new listings now too, a sign that the supply and demand imbalances that have made homebuying a headache are starting to ease. “With homes that go under contract typically closing within four to six weeks, that demand signal is on track to show up in closed sales data by June, the clearest evidence yet that the 2026 housing market is starting to move,” the report states.

Midwest metros trending the right way

Across the top 50 metro areas in the country, contract signings are up in 34 markets compared with 2025. In 31 of those metros, home listings are also up from last year. In 21 of those markets, new listings and contract signings are moving up together. That phenomenon is happening predominantly in the Midwest, including in Kansas City; Louisville, Kentucky; Indianapolis; Columbus, Ohio; and Cincinnati. 

While the stars might be aligning in some regions of the country, things vary considerably depending on where you look. In cities like Las Vegas and Tampa, Florida, both new listings and new contract signings are down from last year due to weakened demand. In Hartford, Connecticut, and Providence, Rhode Island, a limited supply of homes leaves those metro areas stuck for the opposite reason. 

To unstick a market, homes in a stagnant area need to be priced in a realistic way that doesn’t leave them languishing for weeks before an inevitable price cut. But even when the price is right, people buying and selling homes are still subject to macroeconomic forces well beyond their control. 

“If some resolution to Middle East uncertainty stabilizes mortgage rates and restores consumer confidence, the housing market may finally break out of the lower equilibrium it has occupied since 2022,” Krimmel said. 

“If macro headwinds intensify—through rising rates, reaccelerating inflation, or a deterioration in confidence—the market could face the same fate as 2025, when tariff-related uncertainty stalled what had been a promising early spring,” he said.

The immunity deal

Under the settlement to resolve Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit over the 2018 leak of his tax returns to The New York Times, the U.S. is “forever barred and precluded” from examining or prosecuting Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization’s current tax filings, according to a one-page document released Tuesday. That was quietly added to an original settlement establishing a $1.8 billion fund to compensate people whom Trump thinks were improperly investigated by the government.

Tax experts say this grant of immunity is shocking in the breadth of protection it offers the president and could undermine confidence in the fairness of the tax system.

“This is an unprecedented remedy,” said former IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel, noting that Trump should be treated like every other American. “People expect the same tax rules and enforcement framework to apply to everybody.”

That $100 million bill

The IRS probe revolved around whether Trump doubled-dipped in cutting his taxes, according to a 2024 report by The New York Times and ProPublica — specifically whether he used the same losses from his Chicago skyscraper to cut them twice in future filings, a big no-no.

The report said Trump could owe more than $100 million, including penalties, if he were to lose the audit battle.

Now the Justice Department has moved to “wipe his slate clean,” said tax expert Brandon DeBot, calling that an “extraordinary action” in the message it sends to the country.

“The president and his affiliates might not pay the taxes they should,” said DeBot, policy director at New York University’s Tax Law Center. “This is giving the president and his affiliates completely different set of rules than everyday taxpayers.”

Cutting taxes to zero

The immunity is especially useful to Trump. His company includes hundreds of separate businesses, making his tax returns complicated. He also has a reputation for aggressively cutting his taxes, which some experts find suspicious — and at least in one case deemed now illegal.

After his Atlantic City casinos collapsed under heavy debt in the mid-1990s, for instance, Trump claimed about $1 billion in losses to cut his tax bill, even though lenders had forgiven hundreds of millions of dollars he owed. Trump argued the debt was never technically forgiven because he had exchanged equity in the bankrupt casino business for it — a tax maneuver Congress later barred as an abusive tax loophole.

Through that technique and other tax shelters and deductions, Trump was able pay just $750 in federal taxes in 2016 and 2017, and zero in 2020, according to a congressional investigation after his first term.

How the IRS has treated other presidents

Despite hinting that he may now release his tax returns, Trump has previously refused to do so, saying he can’t while undergoing an IRS audit — but there is no law barring him from doing that. In fact, presidents for decades have done so voluntarily and all have had their returns audited as a matter of IRS policy.

That policy began in the late 1970s in a post-Watergate crackdown on presidential abuses after Richard Nixon was found to have claimed dubious deductions — including a donation of his personal papers — that led to big underpayments. One year while president, he paid only hundreds of dollars.

When asked about his tax maneuvers, Nixon famously retorted, “I am not a crook.” He later agreed to the IRS findings, and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes.

Court challenges

Trump’s settlement with the IRS refers only to existing audits, not future examinations, so the president and his family are not off the hook for any alleged abuses in future tax returns.

Parts of the settlement are being challenged in court.

The compensation fund is being attacked by police officers who helped defend the U.S. Capitol from Trump’s supporters on Jan. 6, 2021. They have sued to block anyone — including the rioters — from receiving payouts.

Some law experts expect the tax immunity will be challenged in court, too.
“This is the president trying to play every role in the system, acting as plaintiff, defendant, and his own judge and jury to extract extraordinary windfalls,” said New York University’s DeBot, adding that giving broad immunity “stretches beyond what DOJ actually has authority to do.”

Hussein reported from Washington.

—Bernard Condon and Fatima Hussein Associated Press

The latest monthly prediction from The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) is its highest yet this year—notably higher than the 2.8% increase that it had predicted during its three previous cycles. That previous figure would have kept the COLA flat from 2025. 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) will announce the official 2027 COLA increase in October. At 3.9%, the average benefits check would rise from $2,081.16 to $2,162.33—an $81.17 jump.

The nonprofit TSCL stresses that even a 3.9% jump might not offset inflation’s effect on essentials like housing, groceries, and Medicare. 

“For retirees living on fixed incomes, the costs that matter most, especially healthcare, housing, utilities, and insurance, continue to rise faster than prices in the rest of the economy, silently wrenching seniors dry,” TSCL executive director Shannon Benton said in a statement.

Social Security beneficiaries are increasingly being squeezed

Earlier this year, the TSCL found that 57.6% of American seniors had skipped a healthcare service or product in the last 12 months to save money.

Dental, vision, and hearing services were most commonly cut—Medicare Part B doesn’t offer any coverage toward these areas of care. 

Benton continued: “Many seniors are telling us the same thing: As inflation picks back up, life still does not feel affordable. The average senior already lives on much less than younger Americans, according to the Census Bureau, and our supporters constantly tell us they feel like they’re falling farther and farther behind.”

How was the COLA prediction calculated? 

The TSCL uses a statistical model to make monthly COLA predictions. 

The model pulls from the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Federal Reserve interest rate, and the national unemployment rate. 

Current COLA predictions vary. For instance, independent Social Security and Medicare policy analyst Mary Johnson has predicted a 4.2% rise, CNBC reports. Last month, she had predicted a 3.2% COLA, but increased the number based on April’s CPI data.