It’s estimated that the average person will spend 90,000 hours of their life working—that’s roughly a thousand weeks, or a third of our lives.

Employees are not engaged with their work. According to Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace report, employee engagement has hit its lowest level since 2020, falling for the second consecutive year. This has cost the world economy an estimated $10 trillion in lost productivity.

When Herman Miller launched the Aeron chair in 1994, almost nothing about it made sense. Unlike other chairs of that era, it wasn’t made of leather or full of plush foam. Instead, its frame was exposed, its mesh was transparent, and it cost double what buyers expected to pay for an office chair.

Reports of an AI-led “jobs apocalypse” are greatly exaggerated. Or at least that’s what Sam Altman now claims.

Last fall, Anthropic was playing second fiddle to OpenAI. It had a lower valuation, while OpenAI was still drawing much of the attention as the first mover in the generative AI boom. But the dynamic shifted in late November, when Anthropic released Claude Opus 4.5, which gave the company’s Claude Code coding agent a new brain and helped elevate it to the status of “AI killer app.” Arguably, that was the moment that set Anthropic on its path toward a forthcoming initial public offering (IPO).

If there were ever a truth about generationalism, it’s this: Every generation has the same complaint about the generation that came after it. Kids these days don’t want to work. They want everything but don’t want to work hard enough to get it. They all want participation trophies. We’ve all heard some semblance of these accusations in some fashion or another. In fact, we’re all probably guilty of delivering our own version of these generation-dividing dispositions. However, if every generation says the same about the next, then, inherently, how true can these criticisms really be? Perhaps, instead of there being an impediment in the work ethic of today’s “kids,” maybe they’re actually noticing something we “adults” aren’t ready to admit.

Below, Simone Stolzoff shares five key insights from his new book, How to Not Know: The Value of Uncertainty in a World That Demands Answers.

The conversation about AI and work revolves mostly around jobs being destroyed or new ones emerging, around the workers benefiting and those likely to be left behind. All these debates are legitimate. But there are so many other aspects and consequences that are rarely addressed. 

High-pressure situations at work, like an important meeting, are often the backdrop for our most reactive professional moments. In 2025 nearly two-thirds (60%) of employees who spent more than 15 hours a week in meetings reported experiencing severe stress levels, according to a Wiley Workplace Intelligence report.

In 1985, three British writers, George Stone, Annabel Jankel, and Rocky Morton created Max Headroom, a glitching, stuttering synthetic personality derived from a human template for the TV show Max Headroom: 20 Minutes into the Future. They imagined him as satire—a distorted reflection of the media culture shaped by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, where television no longer felt like just a channel, but an all-encompassing atmosphere. Wrapped in neon aesthetics and exaggerated prosthetics, the idea was to soften the critique, to make it entertaining enough to swallow.

One AI company’s latest opening for a consultant role is anything but a standard tech job.

Chuck Robbins has been the CEO of Cisco for more than 11 years, steering it from a hardware-centric company into a software and subscription-driven business. Under his tenure, Cisco—now valued at $475 billion—has built a combination of networking and cybersecurity capabilities. 

As anyone following Dua Lipa on social media knows, a new photo dump from the singer can only mean one thing: a destination filled with midnight food excursions, aesthetic scenery, and equally Instagrammable looks.

Are we in an AI bubble, similar to the dot-com bubble that burst in the early 2000s? Stock market analysts have been sounding the warning bells for the last year, but those warnings just got louder—and some are answering with a resounding yes.

AI is now front and center in every conversation about the future of design in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. At my firm, we’re embracing AI, but not in the way some headlines would have you think. Our belief is that AI should augment our design expertise, not replace it.

Duolingo just released one of its most requested features ever—but it’ll only be available for a single month.

The biggest IPO of the year may be upon us.

The past few days have been full of bad news for the AI industry. The headlines paint a picture of an industry confronting growing pushback on multiple fronts, from political and regulatory headwinds to disappointing financial returns to poor results from real AI deployments. These are the stories that fed the narrative.

Forget search engines, AI assistants, and smartphones—Google’s next release could be a swarm of millions of mosquitoes.

Want more housing market stories from Lance Lambert’s ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter.