Greetings, everyone, and welcome back to Fast Companys Plugged In.
It was one of the best-received pieces of Apple news I can recall. At the companys WWDC conference last month, it announced that its iPadOS 26 software upgrade would give the iPad a powerful new interface closely modeled on the one offered by the Mac. The response can be fairly summarized as finally.
Its over: Apple has fixed multitasking on the iPad, mimicking the experience on the Mac, tweeted Bloombergs Mark Gurman, who had earlier reported such a move was imminent. We won!
The move is Apples most comprehensive answer to a long-simmering conundrum: How can it make the iPadwhich packs some of its most powerful hardwareinto a professional-strength computing tool? Starting now, its inviting iPad users to judge the results for themselves.
After four rounds of iPadOS 26 developer betas since WWDC, the company is releasing its first public beta version of the software, along with corresponding ones for the iPhone, Mac, and Apple Watch. Final versions are scheduled to ship this fall.
Theres quite a lot in iPadOS 26 I like a lot, starting with the translucent-y new Liquid Glass aestheticrough around the edges in spots, but satisfying eye candy overall. Apple has brought the Macs Preview app to iPad, beefed up the iPad Files app to more closely resemble the Macs Finder, added better support for background tasks such as video processing, and made it possible to put folders in the Dockall of which makes the iPad feel more like a full-powered productivity machine. Without making a big deal out of it, the company also improved iPadOSs support for web apps, a boon for any piece of software whose browser-based version is better than its native iPad experience.
iPad apps are now fully resizable and draggable, replicating the interface Macs and Windows PCs have had for decades.
However, as someone whos used an iPad as my main computer for almost 14 years, I cant join the chorus of unbridled enthusiasm for iPadOS 26s embrace of Mac conventions such as floating, overlapping windows and a menu bar at the top of the screen. Apple may well be making the right decision to please the largest pool of people who want to get work done on its tablet. But its also moving decisively away from some of the philosophies that attracted me to the platform in the first place, and Im trepidatious about where that might lead. (My Fast Company colleague Jesus Diaz expressed similar qualms right after the WWDC keynote.)
Fifteen years ago, when the iPad was new, it wasnt Mac-like at all. Instead, it was often described as a giant iPhonedepending on your perspective, either high praise or a damning indictment. Soon enough, that changed. Apps arrived that let you accomplish tasks that were previously the domain of Macs and Windows PCs; accessory makers started shipping keyboard cases that turned the iPad into a mini-laptop.
Apple doubled down on these trends with 2015s original iPad Pro, a bigger-screen version with optional Smart Keyboard. Ever since, the company has made new iPadsnot just the Pro, but other models such as the iPad Airmore and more capable of serious work. That included adding trackpad support in the Magic Keyboard, a classic Mac feature that made the transition to the iPad with aplomb.
At the 2015 iPad Pro launch event, Apple CEO Tim Cook declared, The iPad is the clearest expression of our vision of the future of personal computing. Over the past decade, however, its become obvious that the hardware aspect of this proposition has been easier to figure out than the software.
The company has made several stabs at features for letting users juggle multiple apps, all designed with touch-friendliness in mind, and seemed determined not to simply clone the Macs way of doing things. However, it never felt like the platform had solved productivity or even made steady progress in one direction. Sometimes, it felt stuck in limbo.
In January 2020, Daring Fireballs John Gruber smartly analyzed why the iPads user interface could baffle the uninitiated. His critique remained relevant for every iPadOS version until iPadOS 26:
To launch the first app, you tap its icon on the homescreen, just like on the iPhone, and just like on the iPad before split-screen multitasking. Tapping an icon to open an app is natural and intuitive. But to get a second app on the same screen, you cannot tap its icon. You must first slide up from the bottom of the screen to reveal the Dock. Then you must tap and hold on an app icon in the Dock. Then you drag the app icon out of the Dock to launch it in a way that it will become the second app splitting the display. But isnt dragging an icon out of the Dock the way that you remove apps from the Dock? Yes, it iswhen you do it from the homescreen. So the way you launch an app in the Dock for split-screen mode is identical to the way you remove that appfrom the Dock.
Yet once I mastered these maneuvers, and learned you could also add a second app from iPadOSs Spotlight search, they became embedded in my muscle memory. More importantly, I loved that the iPad maxed out at two on-screen apps, or three if you counted the SlideOver feature. Floatable, draggable, overlappable windows of the sort that help define the Mac and Windows had always struck me as simulating a desktopbut a messy one. Any time I invested in rearranging them felt like wasted cognitive overload.
iPad apps now have Mac-style menus. And submenus, some of which have so many items that you need to scroll through them.
Similarly, I cherished the iPads abandonment of Mac/Windows-style menus, which felt like a card catalog overwhelmed by features I didnt need at that particular moment, if ever. By forcing iPad developers to think harder about how to engineer their interfaces for maximum efficiency, Apple gave them the opportunity to transcend the cruft of older interfaces. Many rose to the challenge.
While Apple has given iPadOS 26 a full-screen-only mode for people who are just as happy using it as, well, a giant iPhone, it hasnt tossed many bones in the direction of those who liked the Split View and SlideOver features, which it has now retired. Even the fastest methods of filling the screen with two apps now take more steps and feel like work. Meanwhile, using the menu bar remains optional, though I worry that developers will begin to see it as the primary interface, not an alternative one.
To me, the least successful Mac import is iPadOS 26s traffic light system for closing, minimizing, maximizing, and tiling apps. The buttons are located in the menu bar for full-screen apps and in the upper left-hand corner of partial-screen ones, imposing a mental tax as you remember where they are. And since theyre too dinky to touch with adequate precision, they expand when you engage with them, requiring you to reposition your finger or cursor. Its tough to imagine Apple coming up with them for the iPad if they werent already a Mac staple.
If making the iPad more like a Mac was a potentially crowd-pleasing approach all along, why didnt Apple do it long ago? In an interview with MacStories Federico Viticci, software chief Craig Federighi said its only recently that the company has been able to engineer a full-blown windowing system that runs well on a range of iPad models. The interview is the best explanation of Apples iPadOS 26 thinking Ive seen, and I encourage you to read it if youre as interested in this stuff as I am.
Still, understanding why Apple gave the iPad a Mac-esque makeover doesnt clarify its long-term strategy. Will the next few years of iPadOS releases be about bringing the platform in even closer alignment with its elder sibling? Or is there still room for them to divergeeven sharply, if appropriate? What happens if AI transforms how all computing devices work in ways nobody yet understands?
Also: Are we any closer to being able to run Mac apps on an iPadnot a prospect that makes me giddy, but one certain users have long craved? (As quoted by Viticci, Federighi said the iPad shouldnt run MacOS, but he said nothing about Mac apps.)
As I write, the first hands-on evaluations of iPadOS 26 in its public beta form are popping up online. So far, so good: Not to put too fine a point on it, this is the best iPad has ever been, says Gizmodos Kyle Barr. Its like a weight has been lifted from the soul of the iPad, writes Six Colors Jason Snell, a pretty dedicated user of the tablet himself.
Right now, Im feeling a tad weighed down by some of the updates changes. Heres hoping they grow on me, and that iPadOS 27 and beyond reflect Apples future vision of computing rather than merely continuing to catch up with its past.
Youve been reading Plugged In, Fast Companys weekly tech newsletter from me, global technology editor Harry McCracken. If a friend or colleague forwarded this edition to youor if you’re reading it on FastCompany.comyou can check out previous issues and sign up to get it yourself every Friday morning. I love hearing from you: Ping me at hmccracken@fastcompany.com with your feedback and ideas for future newsletters. I’m also on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Threads, and you can follow Plugged In on Flipboard.
More top stories from Fast Company
The Microsoft SharePoint breach was massive. The response has been minimalA critical vulnerability in on-premise SharePoint servers allowed state-backed hackers to breach governments and institutions worldwide. Experts are questioning why more hasn’t been done or said. Read More
AI’s unfulfilled promise to small businessesExpert advice for SMBs: Start small. And rather than investing in new tools, explore the AI features already built into your existing tech stack. Read More
This concept ad for Ikea shows that AI ads don’t have to be cringe‘Exploding box’ AI ads are going viral on X, and hey’re actually pretty good. Read More
How to use the clean energy tax credits before they’re goneThe One Big Beautiful Bill is quickly sunsetting tax credits for all sorts of clean energy purchasesfrom EVs and heat pumps to batteries and solar panels. If you want to claim them, here are the dates each are ending. Read More
This tool lets users send fake legal letters that look realwithout a lawyerHeavyweight is a free open-source project that mimics the intimidating design of legal threats to help ordinary people push backlegally or not. Read More
9 essential Perplexity AI search tips and tricksSearch engine, meet answer engine. Here’s how to get started with Perplexity. Read More
For several years Ive been evangelizing about the growing ways automation and robotics are beneficial to all. From medical facilities to factories, warehouses, industrial rigs and transit, Automated Mobile Robots (AMRs) are driving massive efficiency gains while also elevating the people and organizations who use them.
AMRs reduce costs, improve safety, and address labor shortages, while delivering a rapid return on investment.
A robot can be hacked
As automation progresses, its vital to recognize and respect the fact that robots are both physical and digital beings. We speak with and instruct robots through digital apps and programmed instructions on computers, smart devices, and the cloud. This means that as industries rush to adopt AMRs, theyre also inadvertently exposing themselves to cybersecurity risks.
Just as a database or bank account can be hacked, the digital aspects of AMRs are vulnerable to the same degradation, bugginess, or malicious misuse and damage as any software-dependent program.
Yes, there are plenty of funny videos of a misdirected robot suddenly throwing punches at anyone in sight. But imagine the real consequences of even a relatively small misdirection such as a robotic traffic jam in a warehouse, or the physical danger and loss that could result from a single robotic miscue such as smashing the produce, missing a critical step in a manufacturing process, or driving a piece of expensive equipment into a wall. The results can be catastrophic.
Chang Robotics CIO Joe Tenga has performed a comprehensive examination of these risks and he has written a whitepaper on industry-specific vulnerabilities of AMRs and strategies to mitigate them. For example, in the health industry, if a robots operation includes access to personal information, it could result in a HIPAA violation. In a purchasing center, AMRs could become a target for financial or personal information theft. In a manufacturing or product distribution role, AMRs could become a window for potential theft of Intellectual Property.
Here are two specific concerns about AMRs and cyberthreats.
AMRs run on cyber-physical systems.
Unlike traditional IT assets, AMRs integrate computation, networking, and physical processes, leaving companies that use them open to these possible threats:
Mobility introduces risk. AMRs can physically transport rogue hardware or bypass secure zones.
Badge-based access abuse. AMRs with elevator/door credentials could be exploited to breach restricted areas.
Tampering risk. Robots could be hijacked or outfitted with spy devices.
Robots are not just endpoints, they are mobile insiders. Their dual nature requires an approach to safety and security that combines both physical and cyber defense.
AMRs can be exploited through common network-based threats.
Without proper protection, AMRs could be weaponized as mobile reconnaissance and access platformsboth passively (sniffing) and actively (spoofing or unlocking doors). Possible threats that can potentially exploit weaknesses in security include:
Rogue access points and snifferscan hijack data over Wi-Fi as robots move.
Man-in-the-middle attacks and hardware implantscan inject malicious commands or covertly monitor data.
IoT exploit modules and proxy access abusecan use robots as conduits to broader network intrusions or unauthorized facility access.
Heres how companies can protect themselves
AMRs are transformative to modern business, but only if they are properly secured. Every organization using robotics must do the following:
Implement security at every phase of use from procurement through deployment.
View AMRs as both digital endpoints and physical agents.
Develop scalable, industry-specific cybersecurity programs.
The ability to scale AMR deployments with confidence hinges on embedding cybersecurity from the ground up not as an afterthought but as a competitive differentiator for your successful operation from its very inception and through all seasons to come.
Matthew Chang is the Founder and Principal Engineer of Chang Robotics.
Sometimes one bad apple can spoil the whole bushel. Generative AI (GenAI) seems to have gotten a bit of that reputationa few high-profile, epic fails in a range of industries have made many organizations limit internal use of this technology, and sometimes even ban it to reduce business risk.
The reality is, despite the inherent risk of hallucinations and inaccuracies, GenAI is rapidly being adopted in industries that hinge on precision and certainty, such as pharmaceutical research, medical diagnostics and legalindustries in which time to insight also drives competitive advantage.
Lets take sales as a generic example. Proper use of GenAI tools can speed time to insight significantly, allowing a sales team to improve the quality of their prospects, create meeting summaries and action items, and quickly glean insight from the mountains of client and prospect data that already exist in enterprise systems. This team has a distinct advantage over a competitor that uses manual processes or non-GenAI tools for opportunity analysis. Thus, in sales, the business risk GenAI poses is opportunity risk: the revenue opportunities one loses out on by not using this technology. Lets dive into that.
GenAI opportunity risk
Broadly speaking, opportunity risk can be thought of as the potential loss or missed opportunity that an organization faces by not taking advantage of favorable circumstances or potential benefits. For companies that ignore GenAI, the resulting opportunity risk can manifest in a wide range of significant ways.
Here are three examples of GenAI opportunity risk, from a macro level down to a very individual, in-the-moment view.
Drug development research labs risk losing revenue.
Drug development research labs are using GenAI to digitally design drug molecules, which are translated in a high-speed automated lab into physical molecules and tested for interaction with target proteins. The test results are used to improve the next design iteration, speeding the overall process.
These development labs, which typically partner with pharmaceutical giants, aim to reduce from seven years to four years the time it typically takes to get a new drug to the pre-clinical trial stagea critical chunk of the $1 billion and 10 to 15 years required, on average, to develop a new drug.
The stakes in the global pharmaceutical market are incredibly high, and speed to market can have an enormous impact on revenues. Pharmaceutical companies that dont take advantage of advanced GenAI technologies, either internally or through a development partner, are at a distinct competitive disadvantage and may risk losing billions in future revenues.
Software companies risk loss of innovation.
Software companies are increasingly using GenAI to write code. About 30% of new code at Google and Microsoft is AI-generated, while Meta recently said that AI will take over half of the companys software development within the next year. These BigTech companies, as well as many startups, are finding ways for GenAI to accelerate their pace of software development.
Competitors that dont use GenAI to dramatically improve their software development practice face the very sobering opportunity risk of simply being out innovated in the market.
Legal teams risk losing a competitive advantage.
Legal teams that use GenAI tools in the discovery phase of a legal matter can accelerate their time to insight in ways that are nothing short of game-changing. For example, one Am Law 100 firm used a GenAI tool to review 126,000 documents in a government investigation. In doing so, the firm slashed document review time by 50% to 67%, with one quarter of the personnel that a project of this size would typically require. The review achieved accuracy rates of 90% or higher, with performance at or above the firms benchmark metrics for first-level attorney reviewers.
In the moment, this breakthrough gave the team more time to debate the merits of a potential piece of evidence instead of blindly clicking through endless documents. Strategically, the two-thirds reduction in document review time and the 75% reduction in associated headcount gave the law firm an invaluable amount of additional time to develop its case prior to appearing in court.
For legal teams that dont use GenAI tools to supercharge their eDiscovery efforts, its easy to envision any lawyers nightmare scenario: arriving at court to face off against an adversary whos had far more time to develop their case, based on a solid foundation of facts culled from discovery documents. Who wants to risk that happening?
Final thoughts
While its true that many industries operate on a razors edge of innovation and risk aversion, these examples show how companies that ignore GenAI technology due to business risks, or simply organizational inertia, may suddenly find themselves on the outside looking in.
AJ Shankar is Founder and CEO of Everlaw.
Across industries, caution is rising. CEOs are slowing down major strategiesfrom hiring to investmentas uncertainty grows. The Business Roundtables CEO Outlook Index recently dropped to its lowest level since 2020, reflecting widespread hesitation amid global volatility.
Its understandable. When the path ahead is unclear, the instinct is to pause. To wait.
Companies, institutions, governments, and philanthropists alike are reassessing their strategies as volatility becomes the new norm. Most leaders are focused on the challenges closest to homein their industries, portfolios, and internal priorities. But the reality is: We dont live or work in silos. We live in a global market. And across every corner of that market, the signals are clear: growing caution, slower decision making, and heightened risk awareness.
At UNICEF USA, where I lead private sector fundraising, we are squarely in the middle of that tension. Were seeing these trends play out in real timein boardrooms, in proposal reviews, in budget meetings. As we work to meet escalating needs for children around the world, there is a slowdown. But this is also a moment that demands urgency and trust. It also demands innovation. And like many of our partners, were rethinking what it takes to deliver meaningful, sustained impact in a rapidly shifting landscape.
Hesitation is understandablebut costly
We hear it from donors and partners all the time: Were recalibrating. The global environment is unpredictable. Economic headwinds and geopolitical unrest have created a pause in decision making across industriesand philanthropy is no exception. Even committed supporters are questioning whether now is the time to lean in or wait for more clarity.
But heres the problem: While strategy resets may make sense at the institutional level, the needs on the ground arent pausing. For a child living through conflict in Sudan, a mother navigating floods in Bangladesh, or a newborn in Guatemala in need of basic care, delays have consequences. The cost of hesitation is measured in lives, in futures, in lost momentum.
At UNICEF, we cant stop in the face of uncertainty, and we dont. We double down. Its how we work. Because every delay risks compounding the damage.
We need to be clear-eyed about what happens if global investment slows. Weakening humanitarian and development funding doesnt just affect the children we serveit reverberates across markets and industries. Rising conflict, destabilized supply chains, currency volatility, and workforce readiness arent distant risks. Theyre business realities.
There is a moral imperative to act. But there is also a business imperative. If we want a more stable, equitable futurefor everyonewe must invest in the systems that create it.
Slowing our response now wont bring stability. It will deepen inequality and delay recovery.
Collaborate to meet the moment
One thing is clear: Delivering impact at scale requires collaboration. Weve always worked across governments, corporations, civil society, and communitiesbut in todays environment, the strength of those partnerships matters more than ever. Trust and alignment arent soft values; they are strategic necessities.
Were seeing powerful examples of what this can look like. Corporations that are embracing flexibility. Donors who are willing to have hard, honest conversations. Foundation leaders moving toward sustained, trust-based relationships that prioritize long-term outcomes over short-term metrics.
Through support of the Eli Lilly and Company Foundation (Lilly Foundation), we will be able to not only deliver results, but accelerate change. Its recent commitment to UNICEF USA is focused on delivering and strengthening maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in low- and middle-income countries by expanding prevention and care of noncommunicable diseases. We work to build trust with regular progress updates that demonstrate tangible results on this shared objective.
Innovation with real stakes
Innovation means different things to different people. At UNICEF, its not about noveltyits about meeting the moment by improving how we work and how we deliver. In a world of rising complexity, innovation is how we adaptoperationally, strategically, and systemically.
Whether its working with OpenAI to use generative AI to improve education outcomes, to pilot financing models to increase climate resilience, or scaling health solutions across fragile systems, were focused on innovations that improve delivery and drive measurable outcomes. Not pilot projects for their own sake, but solutions that meet urgent needs and adapt to changing realities.
Progress is not theoreticalits measurable. Since 1990, the number of children under five dying from preventable causes has dropped by more than 60%. Thats proof that when the world acts with urgency and coordination, we can change the trajectory for an entire generation.
Progress is not theoreticalits also human. Imagine a five-year-old child you love. Maybe theyre starting school, asking endless questions, or learning to swim. Now imagine that same childfeverish and weak from something easily treatable. Youre holding them in your arms to comfort them. You know what they need. The medicine exists. The clean water exists. But you cant get it.
Thats the crushing reality facing millions of families every day. Not because we lack simple, affordable, and preventable solutionslike vaccines, treatments for diarrhea and pneumonia, or ready-to-use therapeutic food for severe acute malnutritionbut because access breaks down when systems are underfunded, fractured, or forgotten.
Whats at stake for all of us
This is a moment to lead with urgency. To move with clarity, not caution.
Because the choices we make todayacross philanthropy, business, and policywill determine what kind of world we live and work in tomorrow.
Michele Walsh is executive vice president and chief philanthropy officer at UNICEF USA.
Savvy marketing leaders recognize that AI is a powerful tool that can be used to reshape how teams operate. But even as AI tools rapidly improve, there are still limitations in todays technology that demand titration in how its used. The best marketers are those who understand how far to push the AI envelope within their business and market context.
And now is the time for marketing leaders to expand their existing skill set and develop their AI intuitionwhen to use it, when to lose itto make the most of AIs transformative power and deliver the best marketing work possible. By combining broad AI fluency through adoption with a willingness to remain agile as the technology matures, teams can thrive and make the best use of AI for the biggest impact. With that in mind, here are AI-related dos and donts every marketing leader should know.
AI as a research assistant, not a business strategist
If teams dont understand the context in which their business is operating, they wont be effective marketers. The best marketing leaders are absolute experts on their own companies, with knowledge of the details of their offerings, customers, competitors, and broad industry trends. When marketers understand their business this deeply, they can build programs that align with company priorities, connect with customers, and fuel their companys growth, making it easier to secure budget and executive buy-in.
Do use AI as a cheat sheet to stay on top of the market and competitors, and to improve business intelligence across departments, like finance and product. AI can analyze mountains of internal and external data and content it would otherwise be impossible to comb through, like companies annual reports, customer and competitor earnings, press releases, and newsletters. At Guild, my teams turn to AI for tasks such as market sizing, benchmarking against other marketing organizations for budgeting, and business planning and competitive analysis. AI can also be helpful with pricing research and gauging customer insights.
Dont expect AI to replace the nuanced understanding of a business’s priorities or its context. Ultimately, teams should create their own strategies, but using AI with business context will make those strategies better and more complete. AI cant read betweenthe lines or predict the futureonly meaningful conversations, deep curiosity, and astute understanding of one’s business can do that.
Use AI as a production designer, so creatives can shine
Campaign work in marketing can quickly become rote, tying designers and writers up with tasks that are far from strategic or highly creative. All variants of ad design or ad copy can be generated by AI. It can take a first pass at any blog content, social media graphics, or resizing assets for different platforms. Let AI bring ideas to life faster and more efficiently to free up creatives to focus on developing breakthrough campaign concepts and compelling brand stories.
Do use AI to rapidly prototype visuals, generate multiple design variations, and handle time-consuming production tasks. AI excels at replicating creative direction so take advantage and use in moments where multiple iterations are needed.
Dont rely on AI for creative inception or novel campaign ideas. This is where creatives shine. Use AI to handle the heavy lifting and transform the creative work into end product downstream so creative strategy and brand decisions are owned by creatives themselves.
Use AI to accelerate pointed insights
With AI, leaders can access an abundance of real-time data, turning marketing into a velocity engine for optimization and peak performance. The speed to insights around whats working and what isnt, along with the ability to move with agility, is where the real power of AI lies for marketing leaders. Whether thats analyzing customer data to spot engagement patterns, detailed segmentation in email open rates, or digging into a competitors recent launch, AI helps leaders get to the root of why this matters faster than ever before.
Do use AI to quickly analyze performance data, competitor portfolios, or deep segmentation analysis. Be specific and give AI the full context in your prompts. Instead of asking How did this campaign perform? try What is variance by audience segment in each of these ad headline click-through rates? This is a case where AI can be a game-changer when giving pointed insights.
Dont treat AI-generated insights as final answers. AI may be able to determine if certain creative elements performed well, but it cant determine if that approach aligns with your strategy and broader business objective. Just because AI quickly spots a pattern doesn’t mean it requires changing the work itself. Successful marketers will need to develop the skills to quickly decipher what insights matter and why.
The marketing leaders who will truly shine in the AI era will be those who master the art of balancing technology with their human instincts. In order to be successful, theyll need to leverage AIs power as it exists today, and be agile enough to adapt as the rate of improvement around that technology shifts. Today, that means letting AI handle much of the heavy liftingresearch, data analysis, creative production workto improve expertise and create leverage across the marketing organization. As AI technologies rapidly evolve and mature, the best leaders will dynamically change with it so that their organizations can deliver better, faster, and more novel results for the business.
Rebecca Biestman is chief marketing officer at Guild.
A new survey from neurodiversity advocacy and support nonprofit Understood suggests that the true percentage of neurodivergent adults may be higher than expected. So why is work still so rigid?
Good news: Vine might be coming back. Bad news: in AI form, courtesy of Elon Musk.
“We’re bringing back Vine, but in AI form,” Musk announced on X on Thursday. He did not elaborate further on his plans.
Were bringing back Vine, but in AI form— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 24, 2025
Reactions to the news were mixed. One X user commented: “Worst combination of words Ive ever seen.” Another added: No one wants this.
Worst combination of words Ive ever seen https://t.co/dwclaLM1dE— j aubrey (@jaubreyYT) July 24, 2025
Others, however, were more open to the idea. Could be interesting to see what AI comes up with and evolves into, one X user wrote.
Could be interesting to see what AI comes up with and evolves into.— Seth Pascale (@sethpascale) July 24, 2025
Before TikTok, there was Vine. At its peak, the app boasted 200 million active users and introduced the culture to classics like and they were roommates” and hurricane tortilla.”
Vine allowed users to upload only 6-second clips, laying the groundwork for TikToks current short-form dominance. It launched the careers of many of todays biggest influencers and originated several of TikToks most viral trends, including LeBron James and the ALS ice bucket challenge.
X acquired Vine from its founders in 2012 for $30 million, but shut it down just five years later, citing commercial viability. The Vine archive remained available for another two years until it was officially discontinued in 2019.
Musk, who bought Twitter in 2022 and renamed it X, has long been vocal about potentially reviving the platform. In 2022, he posted a poll: Bring back Vine? with almost 70% voting in favor. Even MrBeast replied: If you did that and actually competed with tik tok thatd be hilarious.
Bring back Vine?— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 31, 2022
Musk posted the same poll again last year, once more receiving an overwhelmingly positive response. YouTuber-turned-professional boxer Jake Paul, who got his first six seconds of fame on Vine, commented: Do it Elon Ill help however I can and round up all the og viners.
Do it Elon Ill help however I can and round up all the og viners— Jake Paul (@jakepaul) April 17, 2024
In January, Musk confirmed that his team was “looking into it” at the same time TikTok was facing a potential ban in the United States.
But now that fans have heard his plans, they might be reconsidering. What “Vine, but in AI form” actually means is still unclear. Best case scenario: perhaps an AI-powered algorithm. Worst case: an endless scroll of AI-generated slop.
For now, Ill stick with classic Vine compilations on YouTube.
The average rate on a 30-year U.S. mortgage eased this week, offering little relief for prospective homebuyers facing record-high home prices.
The long-term rate slipped to 6.74% from 6.75% last week, mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said Thursday. A year ago, the rate averaged 6.78%.
Borrowing costs on 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, popular with homeowners refinancing their home loans, also eased. The average rate dropped to 5.87% from 5.92% last week. A year ago, it was 6.07%, Freddie Mac said.
Elevated mortgage rates have been weighing on the U.S. housing market, which has been in a sales slump going back to 2022, when rates started to climb from the rock-bottom lows they reached during the pandemic.
Sales of previously occupied U.S. homes, which sank to their lowest level in nearly 30 years in 2024, have remained sluggish this year and slid last month to the slowest pace since last September. Sales of new single-family homes edged up 0.6% last month, but the sales pace for June and May have been the slowest since last October.
While there are more homes on the market than a year ago, rising home prices and stubbornly high mortgage rates have made homeownership financially untenable for many Americans. Elevated mortgage rates are also discouraging many homeowners from selling because they locked in mortgage rates when they were much lower.
The persistent risk of tariff-driven inflation, combined with a rising U.S. fiscal debt expected to grow further following the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill Act has helped establish a relatively high floor for interest rates, at least for now, said Jiayi Xu, an economist at Realtor.com.
Mortgage rates are influenced by several factors, from the Federal Reserves interest rate policy decisions to bond market investors expectations for the economy and inflation.
The main barometer is the 10-year Treasury yield, which lenders use as a guide to pricing home loans. The yield was at 4.41% at midday Thursday, down from 4.40% late Wednesday, following the latest signals that the U.S. economy seems to be holding up OK despite all the pressures on it from tariffs and elsewhere.
Yields have moved higher for most of this month as traders bet that the Fed will hold its key short-term interest rate steady at its upcoming meeting next week, despite President Donald Trump demanding that the Fed to lower rates.
A less independent Fed could mean lower short-term rates, which influence the interest consumers pay on credit cards and auto loans, but it could have the opposite effect on the longer-term bond yields that influence the rates on home loans.
The average rate on a 30-year mortgage has remained relatively close to its high so far this year of just above 7%, set in mid-January. The 30-year rates low point this year was in early April when it briefly dipped to 6.62%.
Economists generally expect the average rate on a 30-year mortgage to remain above 6% this year. Recent forecasts by Realtor.com and Fannie Mae project the average rate easing to around 6.4% by the end of this year.
Alex Veiga, AP business writer
Tear a tanktop in half today for Terry Bollea, the entertainer better known as Hulk Hogan, who has died at age 71.
Though he was a towering icon of the 1980s professional wrestling scene and seamlessly transitioned into celebreality TV in the aughts, Bolleas most lasting contribution to our culture may have been what he has done to digital publishing.
Bolleas star had diminished considerably by 2012, when blog-era media giant Gawker published a brief clip from a stealthily recorded sex tape of Hogan and Heather Clem, then-wife of Bolleas then-best friend, radio personality Bubba the Love Sponge. The clip was featured in a post by former Gawker editor in chief AJ Daulerio, a meditation on celebrity sex tapes. Just days after the sex tapes publication, Hogan sued for emotional distress and invasion of privacy. For its part, Gawker defended its inclusion of the clip by arguing that the footage was newsworthy, considering Hogan’s celebrity status and past comments on his sex life.
In March 2016, a Florida jury found in favor of Hogan, awarding him $115 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. The verdict ultimately bankrupted Gawker, hastening an end to digital medias freewheeling blog era. (The website was revived in 2021 under owner Bryan Goldberg, but shuttered again just two years later.)
Perhaps more shocking than the verdict itself, however, was the revelation of who paid for the lawsuit in the first place: Two months after the smoke cleared, Forbes reported that tech billionaire Peter Thiel had been bankrolling Bollea. The former Paypal Mafia member spent roughly $10 million on the lawsuit, apparently with the aim of destroying Gawker, as revenge for outing him as gay in a 2007 post.
Thiels involvement raised concerns that the victory over Gawker could become a playbook for extremely wealthy individuals to silence media outletsa First Amendment nightmare. The New Yorker, for instance, warned at the time that the verdict could pave the way for a war against the press.
And those concerns have since proven well-founded.
Within a year, the Gawker Effect, as coined by journalist Margaret Sullivan had cast a chilling pall over the media environment. Music reporter Jim DeRogatis said a number of publishers passed on his bombshell investigation into sexual abuse claims against singer R. Kelly, citing concerns over potential libel lawsuits. Reporter Kim Masters wrote in October 2017 about her difficulty trying to find an outlet who would touch her investigation into allegations that Amazon Studios executive Roy Price had made inappropriate sexual remarks. Even the weakest of legal claims, she recalled, triggered genuine fear among editors and lawyers, and Price eventually hired Charles Harder, the attorney who defended Bollea. (The investigations eventually ran in BuzzFeed and The Information, respectively.)
Many more blockbuster lawsuits against media outlets have followed in the years since. Blackwater Founder Erik Prince has sued The Intercept multiple times over its coverage of his activities; while the cases were dismissed, they successfully drained the publication of time and money (and effectively diminished their capacity to expend resources on further investigations). In 2020, right-wing provocateur group Project Veritas sued The New York Times for defamation, over publishing legal documents describing the groups deceptive practices, tying up the Times in court for years.
More recently, Elon Musks X filed a defamation lawsuit against the left-leaning Media Matters for America in 2023, claiming it manufactured images showing ads on X placed alongside neoNazi content on the platform, with the aim of driving advertisers away. The publication countersued in March, accusing Musk and X of bringing “abusive,” costly and meritless lawsuits to punish Media Matters for the crime of doing journalism. (Those suits are currently still winding their way through courts; in the meantime, the organization has laid off at least a dozen staffers, citing legal costs.)
And of course, suing news organizations has become a cornerstone of Donald Trumps strategic response for unflattering coverage. Just since last winter, he has sued ABC over George Stephanopouloss on-air claim that Trump has been found liable for raperather than the more accurate term sexual abusesettling for $15 million plus legal fees, he has successfully sued CBS for $16 million, alleging a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris was unfairly edited, and just last week, he filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its parent company for a story linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. Any outlet that cant afford to defend itself in court now knows not to break any unflattering news about Trumpor any other public figure who might be backed by wealthy benefactors with an ax to grind.
Whether Bollea would approve of all this or notand udging by his professed admiration for Trump, he certainly mightthe dire current state of U.S. media is his true legacy.Whatcha gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on YOU? he used to ask wrestling opponents. Nearly a decade after Bolleas lawsuit destroyed Gawker, newsrooms across the country are still grappling with that question.
President Trump has mocked Stephen Colbert’s cancellation and even sued 60 Minutes. Still, the writers of South Park don’t seem too worried about potentially becoming his next target.
After skipping the 2024 election season, Comedy Central’s long-running animated show is back on air for its 27th season, just in time to cover President Trump’s second term in office.
While the serieswhose creators just closed a $1.5 billion streaming dealhas not shied away from mocking pop culture and political figures in the past (previous iterations of Trump as president include Mr. Garrison, a schoolteacher who later runs for president against Hillary Clinton and wins), the creators are directly targeting the current president this season, going so far as using his real face in place of their traditional animated renderings.
In a short 22 minutes, the episode touched on some of the most controversial recent events in the past few weeks, including tariffs on Canada, the Jeffrey Epstein case, the Paramount-Skydance merger, and CBS’s cancellation of The Late Show. To top it off, a scene of the naked president features a small penis (albeit a cartoon one), twisting the knife even more.
Comedy Central, the cable TV channel on which the series airs, is owned by Paramount Global.
Real-life faces are back
Skipping a caricaturized version of the president, South Park opted to use a real image of Trump, cut open like a marionette when speaking, although the artistic choice is famously not new.
In the past, the show has opted for real-life-picture cutouts of certain celebrities and public figuresincluding some infamous ones. The series website describes such portrayals as “more of a personal decision” from the show’s creators.
According to fan roundups collected online, the celebrities and public figures who have been featured with their real-life cutouts include Ben Affleck, Tony Danza, Christina Aguilera, Jeffrey Dahmer, Gene Siskel, Princess Diana, Adolf Hitler, Walter Matthau, Allen Ginsberg, Tiny Tim, Dean Martin, Frank Sinatra, John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy Jr., Mao Zedong, Michael Landon, Jerry Garcia, Saddam Hussein, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Stewart, George Burns, and now, notably, Donald Trump.
In addition to bringing back the marionette-like real-life cutout, the show also revived its in-bed-with-Satan trope. Trump is pictured undressing before climbing into bed with the Devil, an apparent ode to the show’s 1999 film South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, which featured Saddam Hussein in a similar situation.
[Image: Comedy Central]
Not everyone is happy about the episode
While many users on social media have praised South Parks season debut, those in support of the president seem less content with the episode.
“South Park has gone woke. They must go broke,” reads a typical response on X.
As expected, the current administration is also not delighted with the show’s creative direction. Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, told Entertainment Weekly that the “show hasn’t been relevant for over 20 years and is hanging on by a thread with uninspired ideas in a desperate attempt for attention.”
Trump has yet to directly respond to the episode.
