# data[].attributes.body
I have seen many tiny houses on Instagram and even have said how I will want to build one one day if I am able to. These cheaper options allow for so much and if tiny houses can be on wheels it is even better. This article gives great insight into tiny houses on wheels and why they are so interesting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tiny houses-homes sometimes as small as 150 square feet, popularized on reality shows such as Tiny House Nation -have had a longstanding challenge. You might be able to buy or build one for relatively little money, but because they're typically constructed on a trailer with wheels, the zoning codes in most cities make them illegal. Tiny-house forums online are filled with people asking how they can find a place to park their new homes. But a growing number of cities are beginning to change local regulations to allow the houses, and that could make a meaningful difference for affordable housing.

San Jose, California, with a population of more than a million people, is one of the latest cities to legalize movable tiny homes. A new ordinance took effect in May. "We see it really as a way to help address the housing crisis that we have here in the city," says Rosalynn Hughey, director of San Jose's planning department. "We know that we have to use all of the tools in our toolbox in terms of building affordable units, and this particular housing type can be done really cost-effectively and can be done really quickly."

The city, like the rest of California, already allowed accessory dwelling units or ADUs, small backyard cottages that are built on foundations, which the state has pushed as a solution for the housing shortage. But tiny houses on wheels (sometimes called THOWs, in a field that loves acronyms) are even less expensive to build, in part because they're sometimes built in factories with economies of scale, says Dan Fitzpatrick, director of government relations for the Tiny Home Industry Association, who has been working with several cities, including San Jose, to help put new ordinances in place. "You're not going out and hiring an architect to do plans and submit it to the city, and you're not paying the city a lot of fees to review those plans," he says. "You're not going out and hiring a general contractor to put all of the project together from A to Z." Even in cases where ADUs are also built in modular factories, tiny homes are usually far less expensive. In a backyard, they sit on simple pads instead of a foundation. And there's less red tape involved; they come certified from the factory instead of requiring more inspections.

"ADU units here in the city are averaging about $250,000 per unit," says Hughey. "For a tiny home, it's about $50,000. I mean, that's significantly less. Not only that, in terms of building them and getting them in the backyard of a homeowner, it can be done in weeks versus months." For a homeowner who wants the extra rent but doesn't have a large budget, a movable tiny home could make a backyard house feasible; tiny homes could potentially make new housing units grow much more quickly in an area with a deep housing shortage. They're also far less expensive than building larger affordable housing complexes, which can cost as much as $750,000 per apartment to build in parts of the Bay Area.

Movable tiny homes can range in size, though San Jose's new law defines them as between 150 and 400 square feet. The law requires that they have all of the basic functions of larger homes-room to sleep, cook, and a bathroom. They can be hooked up to utility lines at their sites.

In late 2019, Los Angeles became the first major city to allow movable tiny homes. Advocates didn't have to fight much for the change, says Fitzpatrick. "In a lot of ways, it wasn't that difficult of a sell, because all of these communities are desperate for timely and cost-effective, safe, and habitable housing. Affordable housing is a top priority." When he met with the mayor's task force, "Los Angeles was like, where do we sign up? Let's get it done," he says. "Once we got L.A. down, it was very easy to move to the other cities because they knew L.A. had done all the heavy lifting to get from point A to completion."

San Jose was able to use L.A.'s ordinance as a model. San Diego followed, approving tiny homes on wheels in July. The laws include design criteria that distinguish tiny homes, which are technically RVs, from typical RVs that people drive on vacations. (Tiny homes have to look like houses, essentially, and can't drive on their own.) The homes can't have a flat roof. Windows have to have double-pane glass and trim. The exterior walls have to have cladding and trim, like larger houses.

In San Jose, the change in law was pushed by a local youth development program, the San Jose Conservation Corps and Charter School, that saw its own students struggling with homelessness. "We realized that we couldn't wait for somebody else to solve our problem-that we needed to be really proactive and find the solution to our really most pressing problem, which was housing," says Dorsey Moore, executive director of the San Jose Conservation Corps.

In a new program, students learn to build simple tiny houses, which Moore describes as portable dorm rooms, themselves, and then live in them. Some are now housed on the program's campus, but the group will also work with local residents who need extra cash and will lease space in their backyards for $500 a month. Moore says that this type of solution could be critical for low-income students in the area, many of whom struggle to stay in community college because they can't afford housing. He argues that the State of California should help remove the barriers to tiny homes on wheels statewide, just as it did for backyard homes on foundations.

In other cities, the process to legalize tiny homes may be different. In Minneapolis, for example, which currently allows tiny backyard homes only on foundations, Fitzpatrick says that the change will require changes at the state legislature level first. Advocates recently changed a similar state law in Maine. In other states, such as Texas, changes can happen more quickly at a community level. Some areas are beginning to also legalize "tiny home villages" where people can live in small communities. But in the largest cities, filling in empty space in existing backyards may be the quickest way to add new housing.

"This solution, I think, is a great one," says Hughey, San Jose's planning department director. "Again, it's a lot cheaper. It can be done quicker. We're going to continue to focus on our large affordable housing projects. But those take years. We have to get funding to get built. And here-for ADUs and tiny homes on wheels-these things can just happen so much quicker. We can get our residents housed in the city, and that's really the big focus. Particularly now, during the pandemic."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What's better than a tiny house? A tiny house on wheels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tiny houses-homes sometimes as small as 150 square feet, popularized on reality shows such as Tiny House Nation -have had a longstanding challenge. You might be able to buy or build one for relatively little money, but because they're typically constructed on a trailer with wheels, the zoning codes in most cities make them illegal.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is interesting as people can have this company come and install beehives into their backyard and host the beehives to help the environment. This task is pricey for the homeowners but the reward is honey or the fact that it is helping the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Across the Triangle in North Carolina, a region that includes Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, at least 55 residents have voluntarily devoted a section of their backyard to bees. These residents aren't beekeepers themselves, but pay a fee to host the hives for Buddha Bee Apiary, a company that installs the hive, visits monthly to inspect and care for the bees, and harvests the honey.

The honeybee population in the U.S. has been declining; beekeepers here lost 37% of their colonies in 2019, a concerning figure, experts say, because of how crucial these bees are to pollinating crops and wild plants. Beekeeping can help build that population (and even help wild bees) to pollinate your local flora, but can be expensive and time consuming to get into. That's where Buddha Bee Apiary, founded by Justin Maness, comes in, to bring the benefits of bees to people without them needing all the equipment or any knowledge of beekeeping.

Buddha Bee Apiary also harvests the honey, and the host gets half for their own use. But Maness says that's not the main draw. "There's some folks who are interested in the honey and some who are not," he says. "I think the real big value that people get out of it is the fact that they can get invested in the hive, learn more [about bees], and also know that they're contributing back to something that's going to be good for our environment."

Before you can host a hive, an expert from Buddha Bee Apiary will assess your yard to see if it's suitable for bees. The biggest needs, Maness says, are enough space for the two-by-three-foot hive and about an eight-foot low-traffic radius around it to give the bees some calm. Sunlight helps, too, because it can keep away a pest called the small hive beetle (it's important that you don't use mosquito sprays on your lawn).

Once a yard is hive-approved, Buddha Bee Apiary makes the installation an event-a "welcoming of the bees," Maness says-telling the host to invite family and friends. Neighbors or friend groups have gone in on the $150-per-month fee for a hive together, too. Some of the hosts eventually want to take over the beekeeping duties, and Buddha Bee Apiary will help with that transition. Others don't, but want their kids to be involved in the inspection; for those groups, the beekeeper will bring an extra protective jacket so they can get up close.

"Once people get invested into the bees, their health, and the hive as a whole, it's interesting to see people take on projects of converting their yard," Maness says. "Taking a green space and completely digging it up and planting wildflowers, or taking a list [of plants] that we send them and removing some of these plants so that they can put in plants that are pollinator-friendly."

Grass lawns aren't that environmentally friendly, since they're a monoculture that requires a lot of care (and grass is pollinated by wind, not bees). A side effect of bringing beehives to backyards, Maness says, is that people have been transforming their grass yards into something more impactful for the environment.

The bees pollinate plants within a 3-mile radius from the home. With 55 installations of 60 hives, and each hive home to about 45,000 bees, Maness estimates the company has helped install more than 2 million bees all over the region.

Buddha Bee Apiary isn't the only company to do a host-a-hive program. Maness started the company after working with Bee Downtown, which installs and maintains beehives on corporate campuses in North Carolina. "It was amazing to experience this one-on-one interaction with people who have never had this experience with bees, and see their eyes light up and just be absolutely in awe at how beautiful the inner workings of a beehive are," he says.

He wanted to bring that directly to people at their homes. Other beekeepers have done the same. Best Bees manages hives for both corporations and residential homes in Boston, Houston, Chicago, and other cities. Hive hosting has also been done across Australia and in the U.K.

Maness hopes this model continues to expand, and that more people are open to keeping bees-not just to help the bee population, but to help bees be better understood.

"People have this understanding that bees are threatened from an article they read or news story they saw, but they don't have that deeper understanding of what exactly the challenges are that bees are facing," he says. "When we bring this program to your yard we try to unveil that deeper meaning-those things that are happening in the hive and then what's going on on the world scale, the U.S. scale. We try to bring some insight and light to that, so that people are more educated advocates."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Airbnbee? This company lets you host a beehive in your backyard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Across the Triangle in North Carolina, a region that includes Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, at least 55 residents have voluntarily devoted a section of their backyard to bees. These residents aren't beekeepers themselves, but pay a fee to host the hives for Buddha Bee Apiary, a company that installs the hive, visits monthly to inspect and care for the bees, and harvests the honey.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vaccines are coming out right when Biden is elected

# data[].attributes.subject
Vaccines are coming out right when Biden is elected

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting that the Monday after Biden is elected to be the next President that a vaccine is ready. They say that by the end of the moth Pfizer's vaccine for the Coronavirus will be ready but Biden said that he wouldn't trust a vaccine. This article is very informational in this topic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's some massive news out about COVID-19-and it's good for a change. Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine is reportedly successful in preventing over 90% of infections according to early data from its Phase 3 study, says STAT News. Needless to say, if the data holds as the study continues, this vaccine could be the thing that turns the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic in humanity's favor.

However, it's also important to stress that the results are preliminary and a successful vaccine isn't a given yet. Here are six things to understand about Pfizer and BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine so far:

1. The vaccine appears to work in more than 90% of cases: This is huge. Early results show the vaccine has a greater than 90% efficacy rate. That means over 9 out of 10 people who get the vaccine will gain immunity from it. To put that in perspective, health experts have previously said that a COVID-19 vaccine with an efficacy rating of between 60% to 70% would be a big win. Some governments would even approve a vaccine with only a 50% efficacy rating. But 90%? That's better than most scientists and public health experts have dared to dream.

2. The vaccine requires two doses: If this vaccine ends up being successful, a person will require at least two doses of it at least three weeks apart. That means the vaccine isn't a one-and-done deal-which could raise logistical and supply chain challenges. After all, if two doses are required, you need to be able to make-and distribute-at least 14 billion doses to inoculate every person on earth.

3. We don't know if the vaccine works on severe COVID-19 cases or how long it will be effective: A big unknown is how long and for whom the vaccine is 90% effective. Pfizer says it's not yet evident whether the vaccine works on those who make up the worst COVID-19 cases-people who require hospitalization for the disease. It's also unknown how long the immunity gained from the vaccine actually lasts. It could be forever, or it could be just for a few months. We just don't know yet.

4. We don't know if vaccinated people can still carry the disease: Another big unknown is whether vaccinated people can still be carriers of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. If recipients can still be carriers of the virus, they could still spread the disease to others even though they themselves would be, presumably, immune to its effects.

5. The results have not been peer-reviewed: It's also important to note that Pfizer and BioNTech's findings have not been peer-reviewed. That doesn't mean their findings are incorrect. However, it does mean they need to still pass the scientific method's most rigorous process.

6. If approved, most people will be waiting a while to get the vaccine: The vaccine could receive FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) before the end of the year. It all depends on how the ongoing Phase 3 study progresses. The third week of November is the next milestone, which is when Pfizer will have two months of data on volunteers who have had their second dose of the vaccine. If there are no worrying side-effects, the vaccine could get EUA approval by the end of the year. If that's the case, Pfizer says 50 million doses worldwide would be available by the end of 2020, with another 1.3 billion doses available by the end of 2021. Yet that still leaves almost 6 billion people who won't get the vaccine until 2022 at the earliest (barring the approval of other vaccines).

In short: This is very promising news. But it's wise to keep expectations and hopes in check until Pfizer can complete its Phase 3 study and the results can be peer-reviewed. But as William Gruber, Pfizer's senior vice president of vaccine clinical research and development, told STAT, "I've been in vaccine development for 35 years. I've seen some really good things. This is extraordinary." He added, "This really bodes well for us being able to get a handle on the epidemic and get us out of this situation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine: 6 things to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's some massive news out about COVID-19-and it's good for a change. Pfizer and BioNTech's vaccine is reportedly successful in preventing over 90% of infections according to early data from its Phase 3 study, says STAT News.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how even though jobs are being lost people are still looking to help others with hunger relief. People may have less money in their pockets right now but that has changed anything other than making people want to help more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A cruel irony of the COVID-19 pandemic is that at a time when more Americans may need to rely on nonprofits after layoffs or furloughs, those same financial struggles may affect charitable giving across the country. But many Americans who do have a habit of giving to charity are still making donations, and in some cases, they're giving even more.

Nearly two in five American households say they're making less money since the start of the pandemic, according to a Harris Poll survey conducted exclusively for Fast Company. That has affected charitable giving a bit-one in five respondents say they have given less to charity recently compared to before the pandemic; in households that saw a loss of income or experienced a job loss since March, that number jumps to 36%.

Of the people surveyed who say they are still giving, more than half say they've been donating the same amount since the COVID-19 pandemic began, and 21% say they now give more than they used to. Hunger relief has seen the most charitable giving-34%, among those who have given to charity during the pandemic-followed by religious organizations (31%) and health and medical organizations (29%).

While Americans who lost income or a job may be giving less to charity overall, they were actually the ones to give most to hunger relief, according to the poll; 34% of giving to hunger relief came from households that had a decrease in income, and 32% came from households that experienced a job loss during the pandemic.

Those popular areas of giving mirror what Charity Navigator has seen through its Giving Basket donation tool. From the beginning of March to October, Giving Basket donations to Feeding America have increased 1,980% year over year. Donations to Doctors Without Borders have increased 131% year over year.

But not all charities are doing well financially, either because they're not getting as many donations or because they suddenly have to meet a much higher need. "Nonprofits are the safety nets of society and are being tested," Kevin Scally, chief relationship officer at Charity Navigator, said in an email. "For many nonprofits, the pandemic has been extremely detrimental for their abilities to raise funds, while for others, they've seen a surge in giving."

Those looking to give might want to start thinking, he said, not just about how much they're donating, but how far those dollars go. That impact factor may be a reason why GiveWell, which vets and ranks nonprofits based on how cost-effective they are, has seen a surge in donations: $20 million so far this year, up 36% compared to the same time period in 2019, says Catherine Hollander, a senior research analyst at GiveWell. The nonprofit currently lists only eight top charities, chosen for how they could best save and improve lives around the world, including the Against Malaria Foundation and Deworm the World Initiative.

In the world of giving, though, it's still a bit too early to tell how 2020 has affected charities. Though we're nearing the end of the year, the vast majority of charitable giving happens during the "giving season," in November and December. "We expect to have a much stronger read on how 2020 compares to 2019 after that highest volume time of the year is over," Hollander says. Scally echoed that sentiment, saying there's a hope that charitable giving will balance out as we head into the holidays: "Everyone in the sector has their eyes toward giving at the end of the year."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the COVID-19 pandemic has changed how we give to charity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A cruel irony of the COVID-19 pandemic is that at a time when more Americans may need to rely on nonprofits after layoffs or furloughs, those same financial struggles may affect charitable giving across the country. But many Americans who do have a habit of giving to charity are still making donations, and in some cases, they're giving even more.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because it gives insights into how to lead in these rapidly changing times. The authors talk about the importance of flexibility and and the structure of solid values. These are key to being a leader in these times of craziness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a year of unprecedented challenges that 2020 brought, the mantle of the chief executive became even more weighty. In the span of six months, the one-two punch of the pandemic and racial injustice brought a reckoning to the role that no one could have predicted or prepared for. That meant that some succeeded based on the strength of their mission and the agility to shift course while others failed.

During the final day of the Fast Company Innovation Festival, deputy editor Kate Davis sat down with two CEOs who are thriving despite the challenges. Both Aaron Levie, cofounder and CEO of Box, and Jennifer Tejada, CEO and chairwoman of PagerDuty, helm unicorn startups and offered insights into how they view their roles and what opportunities lie ahead for their companies and their careers.

Tejada describes herself as an "extreme extrovert" who was always walking the halls (and is now doing that virtually by being present on Slack and in Zoom calls). She's constantly seeking direct feedback, admitting that as CEO it's often tough to get when employees tell her what she thinks she wants to hear versus what needs to be said.

For his part, Levie sees his leadership as essential to ensure the company is going in the right direction, which is even more important because of the current environment. "You are only as good as your organization and your team," he says, so cultivating great talent is necessary to make sure the company has clarity to be decisive at key moments.

Both emphasized the fact that building a strong company culture has been a guiding light through a year fraught with uncertainty. Levie and Tejada agreed that their employees look to them to offer structure and transparency, even when they don't have all the answers.

Tejada says she's had numerous conversations with employees about engaging customers. "You cannot manage by aggregate," she explained, "everyone is experiencing things differently." That's why she advises listening actively and empathizing. When checking on customers, she says, it's not just about asking how the business is doing, they need to find out how the person is doing and how their family is doing. It's helped that PagerDuty's core values underscore these efforts, she says. "Connecting people to the company's purpose ensures our vision is still well suited as the world rapidly evolves," says Tejada.

Levie notes that agility has played a major role in his leadership this year. Building an organization that is flexible is essential when you can't predict what comes next, says Levie, especially when you don't have all the answers. "We hope we make the right calls," he says.

The strength of their respective companies' cultures has allowed them to flex to a part of leadership that simply didn't exist even a decade ago. The political climate and civil unrest has been top of mind for them both, and each maintains that it's important for a CEO to take a stand on issues like equality and racism. Tejada observes, "A culture will be defined by the lowest level of behavior tolerated, not the most audacious aspiration."

As such, both have made concerted efforts to make their organizations more inclusive. As Levie says, "With the stark injustices in this country, even if there is no business implication, [we] have to make sure we are calling that out and doing our part to improve."

That doesn't mean they think they've got it all figured out now. Levie quips about making early decisions on remote work based on the thinking that the pandemic would be resolved in just a couple of weeks. But he stresses the point of being able to think quickly and be decisive. If he has any regrets as a leader, Levie says it was during "times where I didn't have us move quickly enough on a major issue or strategy." His aim now is to "improve the clock speed" of the organization to take risks and pivot when needed.

Tejada agrees, but adds that one of the times she dragged her feet was on her way up the ladder. "I waited too long to be CEO," she confesses, and it took a mentor calling her an "idiot" a couple of times before she agreed to throw her hat in the ring. Now, she says, "I was born for this."

Which is good timing because there's no end to the current challenges in sight. Yet both Tejada and Levie see silver linings amid the crisis points. For Tejada, the excitement of possibility and innovation offer a positive jolt of inspiration and intellectual stimulation. And even though as CEO there is no downtime, she's celebrating the fact that for the first time ever, she's been able to have dinner with her family every night.

And Levie's faith in the country, and in the world's response to the most pressing social and economic issues, prevails. "There's tremendous opportunity for new business models and new ways of working," he says. "Some exciting positive things will emerge."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to lead through rapidly changing times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a year of unprecedented challenges that 2020 brought, the mantle of the chief executive became even more weighty. In the span of six months, the one-two punch of the pandemic and racial injustice brought a reckoning to the role that no one could have predicted or prepared for.

# data[].attributes.body
This article caught my attention because it helps leaders with tips to keeping positivity up but not at a toxic level. There needs to be a happy medium to everything and this article explains ways to keep that happy medium around consistently.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no shortage of things to get us down these days, from a global health crisis to political and social instability to climate change-induced wildfires. As we prepare for a socially distant winter, without the usual rituals and celebrations, spirits may dip and settle into a low mood.

The onslaught of bad news is so relentless, it begs the question: How do we cope with it all? Fatalism isn't helpful, but positivity that isn't grounded in reality is no better, and can actually poison your expectations.

As a leader, the past six months have brought home for me how much my own mental state affects my team and vice versa. Pretending everything is fine isn't effective when we're all going through serious disruption. Moreover, diving into work as a way to cope can only last for so long.

Fortunately, I've found a few strategies to manage the onslaught of challenges of this year. They may not be perfect, but they've helped me find hope and real opportunity, as well as genuine reasons to be optimistic, for myself and my company going forward.

Drop the "business as usual" act

When the pandemic struck in March, there was a pervasive sense of panic. We couldn't help but feel anxious as we tuned in to government press conferences and watched as our world-as-we-knew-it turned upside down.

My first instinct was to work through it. I scheduled myself into meetings every minute of every day-even scheduling in times in evenings and weekends. I didn't make time to sleep in, read a book, or give myself a spare minute to just do nothing. It worked for a while, until it suddeny didn't.

Mounting stress can only be subdued for so long before it eventually erupts. Unfortunately, my burnout caught up with me at one of my company's team-wide meetings. Instead of helping ground the team by making space and listening, I was unfocused and short-tempered. I ended up putting everyone even more on edge.

At the time it felt like a disaster, but it led to a personal reckoning that changed my outlook. To paraphrase child psychologist and educator Haim Ginott, I suddenly realized that my mood creates the climate in the room-albeit, virtually. My response determined whether I escalated or de-escalated the crisis, whether I'd be a "tool of torture or an instrument of inspiration." If I wanted to be the latter, I had to be healthy enough to lead.

Focus on what you can control

After that tumultuous day, I cleared my calendar and caught up on rest, exercise, and meditation. I also doubled down on my commitment to support the mental health and wellness of every employee via our employee assistance program, and ensured our entire team took a wellness day as a reminder that taking time off is encouraged. In the soul-searching that followed, I identified three key questions that I'm using now to help me keep a cooler head: What is in my span of direct control? What is in my sphere of influence? Finally, what is completely out of my control?

With the intensity of today's concurrent crises, it's easy to get caught up in doubt, but ultimately, your energy is better spent on action. When you zone in on what you can change or influence, filtering out the rest, your field of vision narrows to things you can look forward to and express hope over. Once I made this shift, I was better able to be the kind of leader I wanted to be and the moment called for.

Use specific "filters" to help prioritize and boost spirits

To find a personal balance and a framework for moving forward in a healthy, positive way, I reached out to our team, including board members, and senior staff, to come up with a new way of approaching our work together. The result was four "filters of focus" to help our team make decisions and shape our collective outlook.

First, we consider the health and safety of our team and their families. That means ramping up wellness supports, encouraging people to make use of vacation time, and creating an atmosphere where people feel safe speaking up and asking for what they need.

Second, we need to make sure we preserve our business continuity and meet our objectives, especially amid a crisis. That means meeting our deadlines and commitments to clients and partners, and focusing on the most important business goals and outcomes.

Third, we made the decision to pursue initiatives that we are uniquely positioned to address in response to the pandemic. Honing in on areas where we were best positioned also helped strengthen the pursuit of our company purpose. For example, we could have pivoted to making hand sanitizer, but we saw an opportunity to contribute something from our wheelhouse. My company has expertise in computational chemistry, so we lent our skills in machine learning and AI to modeling COVID-19 mutations.

Lastly, the final filter is preparing for growth and future opportunities. Our company's mission is to protect plant and human health and ensure an Earth that thrives and provides for everyone. The September wildfires are a stark reminder that addressing climate change is still an imperative. Even once we've figured out how to live with the virus, the public-health impacts of climate change could be even worse if we don't continue to work on solutions. In recent months, we've created a proposal in order to better support farmers with tools, while aiding agriculture to build economies and meet climate goals.

This big-picture thinking wouldn't have been possible if we hadn't found a way to reconnect to our core goals and the role we can play in creating a better future as an organization.

There's no getting around the fact that the world is in a tough spot. This year has demonstrated that change is the only certainty, and we're not out of the woods yet. No doubt there will be more challenges to overcome. But having a structure in place (and focusing on the things within your control and the difference you can make) will set up you and your team to weather this enduring storm.
Karn Manhas is the CEO and founder of Vancouver-based Terramera, a global agtech leader fusing science, nature, and artificial intelligence to transform how food is grown and the workings of agriculture economics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to inspire your team during a crisis without falling into toxic positivity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no shortage of things to get us down these days, from a global health crisis to political and social instability to climate change-induced wildfires. As we prepare for a socially distant winter, without the usual rituals and celebrations, spirits may dip and settle into a low mood.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this article because it is amazing to see companies working to use less cardboard as we need to be less abusive to the environment. there are alternatives out there that humans can use to make for less of a demand on products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Inside an Amazon warehouse, when an order gets ready to ship, a worker doesn't just make a decision about what package seems best. Instead, a suite of machine-learning tools analyze the combination of items that are shipping and choose the size and type of packaging-or whether a box is needed at all-as part of the company's ongoing quest to shrink its giant packaging footprint.

The company won't share how much cardboard it uses in a year, though as the world's largest online retailer, the number is huge. One recent analyst estimate suggests that Amazon shipped 415 million packages in the month of July, for example. But the company says that over the last five years, it has managed to reduce the amount of packaging used per shipment by roughly a third, eliminating 915,000 tons of packaging material, or the equivalent of 1.6 billion boxes that it would have otherwise used. In the last two years, its software has allowed the company to avoid shipping more than 500,000 tons of waste.

In many cases, orders now come in padded mailers rather than cardboard boxes. This helps lower the carbon footprint of the delivery, which drops along with the size and weight of the package. "We can reduce the wastefulness of the packaging, and the space it takes up on trucks, which reduces our overall fuel to transport to the customer," says Kim Houchens, Amazon's director of customer packaging experience. "And then, of course, when it arrives on the doorstep, we have less for the customer to recycle or to waste."

Bubble envelopes aren't perfect: Amazon typically uses plastic mailers that can't be recycled in curbside bins, and which can even cause problems in recycling centers if they're put in the system and jam up equipment. "It's actually a huge burden on [the recycling centers]," says David Pinsky, plastics campaigner for Greenpeace.

Amazon notes that it's possible to drop off the mailers at some stores for recycling, and that it's donating money to help improve recycling infrastructure. But it's also working on alternatives, including a new all-paper mailer now in use for some shipments. Launched in 2019, the new mailer uses four layers of paper and a unique treatment with a water-soluble glue. "When you heat it up, it actually puffs up and makes what looks to be like Styrofoam," Houchens says. (The appearance is a challenge, and the company is also working with recycling centers to explain that it is, in fact, recyclable.)

AI tells warehouse workers-or, in some cases, machines that are packing orders automatically-when a padded mailer can be used instead of a box, pulling in data from customer complaints and returns to understand when a particular product should have had more packaging, or when it was overpackaged, as in a shipment where a single small item is inexplicably delivered in a giant box.

The sheer scale of the range of products that the retailer offers means that it isn't feasible for someone working in a warehouse to quickly choose a package for any particular order, or even to have a database listing which package to use for any given product.

"It appears perhaps simple at first glance-that you could just let the packer make the right decision, or that you could properly measure and keep a catalog of everything perfectly," Houchens says. "But Amazon's ever-changing and vast catalog has hundreds of millions of different products. If you then try to combine them in any combination of orders that a customer can place, we've got near-infinite permutations of customer shipment options. This is unlike most everyone else in the retail business. Even the largest e-commerce companies don't have the catalog that we have. And not only is it hundreds of millions of products today, but it's changing every day. We might have 35% new products between now and Christmas to learn about."

Algorithms can also judge how products can be packaged together-which items are flexible, for example, and can be packed around items that are rigid. (This involves building in shortcuts, because fully solving a problem like how to fit a five-item order together "would take greater than the time we have here on Earth in order to calculate all those possibilities," says Matthew Bales, research science manager for Amazon's customer packaging experience team.) In another bid to reduce packaging, the company offers Prime customers the choice of "Amazon Day," meaning multiple orders will wait to ship and be delivered on a particular day of the week, which lets them be combined into fewer packages.

The algorithms also tell packers when a product can ship without an outer box, through the company's "frustration-free" packaging program, where manufacturers are prodded by Amazon to develop packages that can ship alone. Tide laundry detergent, for example, now ships in its own packaging, a wine-box-like container instead of a plastic jug. In Amazon's Packaging Lab, engineers work on problems like how to safely ship liquids with as little packaging as possible.

The company expects that the amount of packaging it uses per order will continue to shrink. Still, the challenge is immense. Data analytics company Fastmarkets says that shopping online uses seven times more cardboard than shopping in a store. And as online shopping continues to grow, Greenpeace's Pinsky argues that retailers like Amazon will need to move to new reusable packaging models like those pioneered by companies like Loop, both for product packaging and the packaging used in shipping. "We need to eliminate this question of single-use packaging," he says, "whether plastic, cardboard, paper, whatever it is-and embrace reuse."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside Amazon's quest to use less cardboard

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Inside an Amazon warehouse, when an order gets ready to ship, a worker doesn't just make a decision about what package seems best. Instead, a suite of machine-learning tools analyze the combination of items that are shipping and choose the size and type of packaging-or whether a box is needed at all-as part of the company's ongoing quest to shrink its giant packaging footprint.

# data[].attributes.body
I am choosing this article because lately I feel people have been dealing with conflict around me more. Maybe it is the times that are causing this but i feel these tips could help people in many different scenarios and not just work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the era of remote work, getting into productive conflicts is one of the most important ways to grow engagement and trust. To help your team become more comfortable with conflicts, leaders need to encourage constructive communication about them.

Easier said then done? Consider these three steps to get ahead of unproductive and morale-depleting conflicts.

Don't think of feedback as "negative"

Stop thinking of feedback as either "positive" or "negative"-there's only helpful feedback. It's natural for most people to want to avoid conflict or confrontation, whether they are your colleague, your manager, or your direct reports. But if you knew someone would benefit from changing their behavior, then telling them would be one of the most helpful things you could do for them.

Instead of getting defensive, get curious

When a conflict arises, we naturally get judgmental. But instead of judging the person you're in conflict with, fire up your internal questioning and sense of curiosity. Desire to learn what happened. Ask questions like some of the following:

What just happened?

What was the person thinking or feeling that made them behave in a certain way?

What else might be going on?

Are they wholey responsible?

Is there a bigger picture to this story?

What are our options moving forward?

Apply the "ABC" model

When trying to manage a conflict turn leadership coach Lori Dernavich's model, based around three simple ABC's for providing feedback.

A = Aiming for, hoping for, wanting for the person. This is short and positive. The reason why you start with a short, positive Aim is to convey empathy, to show you care, and to lessen the chances of the receiver becoming defensive.

B = Behaviors you observed in/from the other person. These are fact-based, omitting assumptions, feelings, or judgment. It's merely what you observed happen. A good way to tell if you are stating facts is the "videotape test": can what you describe be captured by a video camera? I.e. "You walked out of the meeting" passes the test and it is a fact; whereas "you're crazy" doesn't pass the test and is a judgment.

C = Consequences or impact of those behaviors. Don't skip this part either. We often tell people what they're doing wrong or what we disagree with, but not what those behaviors are doing to the person, others, the company, etc. Calling someone out puts them on the defensive. Focus mainly on the impact.

The key is to use tips in this designated order and not to shuffle or jump around with the steps. So, always use it as the name intended-A, then B, then C.

If they get defensive, keep going back to A (the "aiming" step) to let them know that your intentions are positive. Afterwards, you can discuss what next steps to take.

To paint the scene, imagine a scenario where you want to have a constructive conversation with someone whose communication style is counterproductive for the team. Here's an example:

A = "Hi [co-worker's name], we won't always agree on every issue, but we want you to be an integral part of creating an environment where we can safely and enthusiastically communicate, collaborate, and get s*#t done."

B = "I realize things got heated, but when you [bring up facts about what happened]."

C = "X are the consequences of your behavior." For instance, you can try to bring up how certain actions can affect reputation, damage credibility, and reflect a lack of maturity. Behaviors like that not only shut down the conversation, but you now run the risk of folks not being fully open and honest in future conversations.

Return to A = "Again, we all want this company to be successful, and that means we want you to be successful, too. Let's talk about where to go from here to get us back on track."

Once everyone starts thinking about conflicts as growth opportunities, they will be more open to have a productive discussion about it. Given the right framework, your team will start to realize a conversation about the conflict won't break the team, but only make it stronger.
Kate Yuan is a startup adviser, investor, and operator. She previously worked as an operating partner at a VC fund and currently runs a philanthropic fund for entrepreneurs in emerging markets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 tips to help your employees deal with conflict

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the era of remote work, getting into productive conflicts is one of the most important ways to grow engagement and trust. To help your team become more comfortable with conflicts, leaders need to encourage constructive communication about them. Easier said then done? Consider these three steps to get ahead of unproductive and morale-depleting conflicts.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is interesting because the hiring process is very different right now. Everyone is a face online but what sets you apart to get that job is key. Bezos says there are three things he looks for in candidates 1. Is this a person we will admire, 2. Will this person increase the effectiveness of the group, and 3. Is this person a superstar. These are the things to remember to try to show who you are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world. His financial success is the subject of innumerable articles. But what is less talked about is one key to that success: Amazon's hiring practices.

As he explains in a Letter to Shareholders just after the company went public: "Setting the bar high in our approach to hiring has been, and will continue to be, the single most important element of Amazon.com's success."

Anyone applying for a job at Amazon should realize that expectations are high. Bezos himself acknowledges, "It's not easy to work here." As Amazon prepares to hire over 100,000 employees across the United States and Canada in the coming months, job seekers should be aware of the qualities the company examines.

Bezos and his hiring team still consider candidates in terms of three broad questions he set forth in his original 1998 Letter to Shareholders:

1. Is this a person we will admire?

Bezos has said he seeks people who are more than simply competent. "I've always tried hard to work only with people I admire," Bezos observes. "If you think about people you've admired in your life, they are probably people you've been able to learn from or take an example from."

Admirable individuals he notes in interviews, are "right a lot," but they're also good listeners and willing to change their minds. As he puts it: "The smartest people are constantly revising their understanding, reconsidering a problem they thought they'd already solved. They're open to new points of view, new information, new ideas, contradictions, and challenges to their own way of thinking."

Interview questions tests this quality. They include, "Tell me about a time you were given feedback that made you change your strategy." Candidates applying for job at Amazon need to show they're open to new ideas, that they've responded to the ideas of their colleagues, and that the solutions they've put in place are a result of collaborative thinking.

2. Will this person increase the effectiveness of the group?

Bezos looks for candidates who will strengthen the organization. "We want to fight entropy," he explains. "The bar has to continuously go up. I ask people to visualize the company five years from now. At that point, each of us should look around and say, 'The standards are so high now-boy, I'm glad I got in when I did!'"

When interviewing candidates, Amazon brings in employee referees (called "bar raisers") who assess how the candidate will enhance the corporate culture. They look at how that individual measures up to Amazon's 14 Leadership Principles. Anyone who is preparing for an interview, should master these principles and have anecdotes that show how their qualifications fit with this philosophy.

Recruiters will ask candidates how they drive change in their group. One question they often ask is: "What metrics do you use to drive change?" Or "describe a situation where you had to make a decision without data."

3. Is this person a superstar?

A third quality that Amazon looks for in job candidates is the capacity to be a "superstar."

Bezos explains in that same letter to shareholders, "Many people have unique skills, interests, and perspectives that enrich the work environment for all of us. It's often something that's not even related to their jobs." He notes, for example, his excitement about having hired a National Spelling Bee champion.

Superstars, for Bezos, can be "mavericks," "a little bit radical, a bit of a rebel," as he explained in a 2018 speech. One of Amazon's 14 leadership principles is that "Leaders think differently and look around corners for ways to serve customers." Mavericks see things " with a fresh lens "-a key to innovating.

The company's recruiters may ask candidates: "Amazon is a peculiar company. What is peculiar about you?" Or they might throw this at a job seeker: "Jeff Bezos walks into your office and says you can have a million dollars to launch your best entrepreneurial idea. What is it?" The best candidates will show they're different-stars in some way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 things Jeff Bezos looks for in job candidates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world. His financial success is the subject of innumerable articles. But what is less talked about is one key to that success: Amazon's hiring practices.

# data[].attributes.headline
News is not always what is seems with COVID-19

# data[].attributes.subject
News is not always what is seems with COVID-19

# data[].attributes.body
This article is interesting as people often times listen to anything they hear when it comes to news. Society puts out material to get people to read so they get views. Rarely do people put in the research to learn the facts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With COVID-19, a news story that may be 100% accurate can still unintentionally mislead readers about the greatest threats of the pandemic. The unintended outcome results from a lesson taught to every journalism student: Use "real people" to "humanize" the news.

The "real person" in COVID-19 stories may be a mom concerned about her child getting sick in the classroom, used as an example in an article about schools reopening. It may be the family member of a person who died from COVID-19, who gives a moving account for a story about the virus's effects on young adults.

News is about people, so it makes sense to highlight real-life stories. Viewers and readers relate more to personal tales than they do to dry statistics.

But one person's experience is, well, one person's experience. Media studies research suggests readers should not be unduly swayed by one person's tale of woe-or joy-because examples don't necessarily represent the whole.

Harrowing, memorable, and incomplete

Six million Americans have contracted the coronavirus, experiencing radically differing symptoms, illnesses, and outcomes. So terrifying individual tales in a news story can't tell people all they need to know.

For example, National Public Radio recently did a piece on people recovering very slowly from the coronavirus. The gut-wrenching story told first-person accounts of two women who continue to suffer months after getting the virus.

The interview was harrowing-enough to scare one into wearing a mask at all times-and memorable. But most people will not become COVID-19 " long haulers." Evidence suggests it takes usually two weeks to recover from mild cases and six weeks from serious cases.

While scientists don't yet fully understand COVID-19, the overall recovery rate from the virus is between 97% and 99.75%.

NPR included information on typical illness length in its story on COVID-19 long haulers. But the two women's horrific accounts are what many listeners will likely recall-and tell others about.

Another exemplification that could lead people to misunderstand pandemic risk is the story of the first child under age 5 to die from the virus, in South Carolina. Distributed nationally by the Associated Press, this piece ran in local papers across the U.S. It would naturally have parents concerned.

Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says children so young are 9 times less likely to die from COVID-19 than young adults and 270 times less likely than people in their 50s.

This information was not included in the story, potentially skewing parents' thinking when it comes to decisions about everything from playdates to school attendance.

Anecdotal evidence is . . . anecdotal

This problem goes beyond coronavirus coverage.

Another common tactic in the news business is the "anecdotal lead"-the short story that starts a news article or TV news broadcast, meant to grab attention. For example, one widely reported anecdote during the antiracism protests following the police death of George Floyd was a store owner in Santa Monica, California, who protected his liquor store from looting in June by standing out front with an assault rifle.

Be wary of such opening anecdotes.

The Santa Monica snapshot, while true, is not indicative of how unrest across the nation is playing out. Most protests are peaceful, and when looting breaks out business owners generally leave armed defense to the police. Some press charges against those who damage their property. Other small business owners have fed, protected, and joined peaceful protesters.

All those stories are told in the media too. Yet Brian Dunning, executive director of Skeptoid Media, which produces a podcast dedicated to debunking bad science, said the opening anecdote is usually what readers and viewers remember from a news story-not so much the bigger picture it is supposed to convey.

The human brain is "hard-wired to think anecdotally," said Dunning in a recent interview with a group of journalism educators.

Science backs this up. Research into cognitive processing finds that people consume information constantly, and their brains eventually get so full that only a few scant details can be recalled.

"So most news story content is never adequately processed and quickly forgotten," write Stanley J. Baran and Dennis K. Davis in a primer on mass communication. "Even when we do make a more conscious effort to learn from news, we often lack the information necessary to make in-depth interpretations of content."

The big pandemic puzzle

Despite the foibles of human memory, journalists still gravitate toward "the intriguing case report" and the "exemplar-laden account," explain researchers Dolf Zillman and Hans Bernrd Brosius in their 2000 book, Exemplification in Communication.

There's a simple reason: It sells.

"Journalism dedicated to unexemplified, abstract accounts of phenomena, no matter how reliable and effectively informative, has rarely, if ever, been considered a winning formula," say Zillman and Brosius.

The real-person story is not useless. It can help people understand today's complicated world of deadly pandemics, civil unrest, and economic devastation.

But examples are only part of a bigger picture that may well be abstract, nuanced, and ever-changing.

The wise news consumer will consider each example as just one piece of the pandemic puzzle as they make daily decisions to keep themselves healthy and their families safe.
Thomas J. Hrach is an associate professor in the department of journalism and strategic media at the University of Memphis.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to separate fact from fiction when you read COVID-19 news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With COVID-19, a news story that may be 100% accurate can still unintentionally mislead readers about the greatest threats of the pandemic. The unintended outcome results from a lesson taught to every journalism student: Use "real people" to "humanize" the news.

# data[].attributes.headline
Science is essential to future generations

# data[].attributes.subject
Science is essential to future generations

# data[].attributes.body
This article emphasizes how younger generations this fall can watch this new show. The show teaches kids how to use things in the natural world and create science from it. Overall a great way to help kids in this day of age.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Parents of children between the ages of 3 and 6 looking to supplement their children's education this fall will have a new option starting September 7, with Elinor Wonders Why joining the PBS Kids lineup.

Elinor Wonders Why is a STEM-based cartoon series created by Daniel Whiteson, a physicist and astronomer, and Jorge Cham, a cartoonist and robotics engineer. They're both parents of small children, so they understand how to encourage curiosity through science and how to break down complex concepts.

Cham and Whiteson have been partners for years, working together on PhD Comics, which is a webcomic, YouTube, and podcast universe dedicated to PhD student humor. Linda Simensky, head of content for PBS Kids, had been a fan of their work, and when the opportunity to create a preschool science show that focuses on biomimicry came up, she figured they'd be great for the job.

"Biomimicry is basically taking things that you learn in nature and in the outdoors and in the natural world, and using them for inventions and for innovation science," says Simensky. "The classic example that they use in the pilot is how Velcro was designed. Basically, it was inspired by someone getting burdock stuck to his pants, and that's what inspired Velcro, so that's the classic example of finding something in nature that solves a problem that you need to solve in real life."

Elinor Wonders Why centers around Elinor (named after Cham's daughter), a curious and observant rabbit living in Animal Town who goes on various adventures. In the upcoming premiere, Elinor plays hide-and-go-seek with her friends and finds out how animals hide in nature. She investigates an odd nighttime sound made by an owl and realizes how fascinating other creatures in nature are as she explores colors, sights, sounds, and other concepts that can be applied to everyday life.

Fast Company caught up with Linda Seminksy, Jorge Cham, and Daniel Whiteson to chat about their journey of breaking down science and encouraging curiosity for preschoolers.

Fast Company: Linda, talk about your excitement in bringing Jorge and Daniel on board.

Linda Seminsky: I'm usually not talking to scientists. I'm usually talking to people who have made a career out of creating shows for kids, and it's like they love making shows but the science pieces often are a struggle for them. Jorge and Daniel were like, "One of our big things is talking about science to people and making science understandable to regular people because it turns out a lot of people are interested in it. They just don't understand it."

They got pretty excited about the idea of sharing this topic that they love with an audience that they really like. They both have younger kids, and they both got very interested in this, and I knew I would like the design, because I like Jorge's art styles, and when they turned in the pitch, I was like, "Wow this is really perfect!" . . . . It's not a big high-concept, hard-to-understand thing. It's very straightforward. It's very easy for kids to get, and it's really sweet, and it's cute, and it really knows that science . . . . I like the way the characters interact, and I like that there's a lot of humor in it, and the teachers and the adults in it are often sunny, as well as the kids. It came together really nicely, and I think there was a certain beauty in experimenting and working with people outside the industry to put this together.

FC: Jorge and Daniel, how much fun with your skills had you been having with your children before this and how did that come in handy for the show?

Jorge Cham: My daughter, Elinor, was four when we started developing the show, and she definitely loves to wonder why and ask questions. Like all kids, there's so much they don't know and are curious about. We definitely did-and still do-love to sit around and draw and design things and come up with stories. Definitely talking with them and learning to speak their language and what they find fun has been incredibly helpful to making the show. Making the show has also been a great experience to share with them. Sometimes, they even contribute ideas.

Daniel Whiteson: My kids are naturally curious, and I am always talking science with them. We tried to model the behavior of the adults in the show after how we talk to our kids about science-not just acting like a vending machine for facts, but turning the question back to them, asking, "What do you think?" or "How would you figure it out?" so we can explore it and discover the answers together.

FC: Why did you decide to go with animals as the "people" in this universe?

JC: We think there's something fun and creative about an animal world that makes the characters appealing but also relatable at the same time to young kids.

DW: Having a diverse crew of young animals also lets us highlight their range of skills and abilities.

FC: Describe the overall process of "dumbing down" highly sophisticated content for a younger audience. Was it harder than you thought?

JC: There was definitely a learning curve, but fortunately everyone at PBS, our team of science and education specialists have been great collaborators and guides. We don't really believe in the phrase "dumbing down." We typically think anything is explainable if you pay enough attention to making it relatable, accessible, and appropriate for the audience.

DW: Something important for us was to make each episode about a single question that a real kid would have. We looked for topics that any typical kid would think, "Huh, I do wonder why that is?" The kinds of questions they might ask when they look at their own world, like, "Why do birds have feathers?" or "Why do lizards sit in the sun?" It's also important for us that the kids in the show play an active part in finding the answers, so we pick questions that kids could answer themselves using basic scientific thinking and simple tools, simple experiments, making observations, and comparing and contrasting. This made the questions and answers accessible, and also hopefully provides a model for them to follow at home.

LS: The part of it that's the hardest is getting everything to work for the same age group. That's the first thing. So, when you're doing that, you're doing several things at a time. You're coming up with the idea for the show and you have to make sure that you know exactly who your age group is, and in the case of Elinor, it's kids between the ages of 3 and 6. That's a typical preschool group, and that includes kids who are in kindergarten, and even within 3 to 6, that's obviously a pretty big range of kids. So you have a certain kind of curriculum, and you want to make sure that it really works for kids that age.

Even if you're a science expert, you also need to work with a person who is an expert on the teaching of science to younger kids. In this case, Sara Sweetman is a professor at the University of Rhode Island. She's one of our go-to people for teaching science to younger kids. She knows exactly what kids this age can understand and what goes over their heads. If you say to her "rocks," she can tell you what kids will understand about rocks, what's too much for them, and the ranges that you can cover and sort of follow the curriculum that the majority of it is right for this age group. For the most part you have to make sure that there's stuff for 3-year-olds and there's stuff for 6-year-olds and all points in between, and in developing the show, you have to make sure the style works right for this age group and that the stories are understandable for this age group.

FC: What have you learned and enjoyed most about the process?

DW: The most enjoyable part of the process has been to work with a passionate and talented group of people, both at PBS and CPB and in our team here and at Pipeline Studios. Everyone-from the staff to the writers, educators, animators, and technical folks-has been amazing and great to work with. At every step, we felt lucky that people were connecting with the project and injecting their passion for science and education.

JC: It's also a joy to see the reaction of kids to the show, and to see these ideas about curiosity sink in and to watch them start to become little scientists in their lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a physicist and a robotics engineer created 'Elinor Wonders Why' to teach young kids science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Parents of children between the ages of 3 and 6 looking to supplement their children's education this fall will have a new option starting September 7, with Elinor Wonders Why joining the PBS Kids lineup. Elinor Wonders Why is a STEM-based cartoon series created by Daniel Whiteson, a physicist and astronomer, and Jorge Cham, a cartoonist and robotics engineer.

# data[].attributes.headline
The One Day Sports Strike is a wake up call for every brand profiting from athletes 

# data[].attributes.subject
The One Day Sports Strike is a wake up call for every brand profiting from athletes 

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this item because this is the first time in a long time that all sports ceased playing to protest for a cause. I found this article on Fast Company. com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sports has always been perceived by some as a refuge from the real world. That impulse is what helped drive leagues to return amid the pandemic, so people may be working from home, or have lost their job, or even gotten sick or lost a loved one to COVID-19, but at least they'd have playoff basketball.

On Wednesday night, when the Milwaukee Bucks refused to take the court for Game 5 of their playoff series against the Orlando Magic, in protest of the police shooting unarmed 29-year-old Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, it reminded everyone that athletes are people, too; they're workers; and they would no longer stand by and be willing to divert the masses from the brutalities of real life.

From "Ohio" and " A Change is Gonna Come," to "Fight The Power" and "Fuck Tha Police," the loudest pop cultural voice of protest has traditionally come from musicians through their art.

Athletes, though, have always been a close second, albeit more for what they've done with the spotlight on them rather than their actual play. Muhammad Ali transcended boxing to speak out against Vietnam and racial injustice. Americans Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised a black-gloved fist while on the medal stand at the 1968 Olympics. Four years ago, Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem for the first time, starting a journey that would lead him from all-pro to exile to icon.

Still, beyond a few individuals, sports overall remained largely an escape from America's problems.

For one night, though, the players' wildcat strike-and yes, it was a strike-showcased their collective power to make people pay attention to a cause larger than who wins a playoff series. The Bucks' collective decision had a rapid effect far beyond one NBA bubble court at DisneyWorld. First the Bucks' opponents joined the strike in solidarity. Then the other scheduled NBA games fell like dominoes. Over in Major League Baseball, the Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Cardinals decided to not take the field for their game. Major League Soccer's Inter Miami and Atlanta United also canceled their game.

While NBA players have now agreed to continue to play, the one-day strike is a watershed and telling moment for all the brands and corporations that have expressed solidarity and support for anti-racism action with financial donations and all the right words. Because this isn't about a vague umbrella term like "racism," that makes it easy to support publicly. The players staged a wildcat strike demanding specific action on police brutality and racist practices, and brands that have long benefited from these athletes' personalities and abilities will be forced to decide how far their support goes.

"I think brands are conflicted," says Chuck Welch, chief strategy officer at Brooklyn-based Rupture Studio, a Black-owned brand strategy consultancy that works with such brands as Pepsi, Hennessy, LVMH, and Nike. "On one hand, they want to espouse and stand for the same values the players are standing for. If you're Nike or Puma or Adidas or Pepsi or Coke or whomever, young audiences are waiting and watching to see what side of the fence brands will hop down on. Are you going to stand with them even if it costs you money? It's really not a principle unless it impacts your bottom line."

The question for both fans and brands is, what now?

Over the past decade or more, the NBA has become a player-led league. In operations, with players like LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard, and Anthony Davis orchestrating team moves in ways that would've been impossible not long ago. In its marketing, it really leans into the personalities and lives of its stars beyond the court. This coincides with one of the most enthusiastic and engaged social media audiences, with NBA Twitter making memes, jokes, and more that have become as much a part of the fabric of being a basketball fan as cable TV.

Now all these factors are in play as players are exercising their leverage-within the league and in hoops culture-to bring attention to the profoundly urgent issue of police brutality, the disproportionate killing and shooting of Black Americans by law enforcement, and ultimately, the systemic racism that fuels it. Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving spoke out about it back in June, saying that returning to the court could be a distraction from the ongoing Black Lives Matter protests. However, the collective action of an entire team, a team that's a favorite to win the title, has really pushed this to yesterday's move.

Until now, the most significant speaking out has been on social media, more recently combined with the league partnering to have messages around Black Lives Matter and anti-racism on the courts and on team jerseys during the bubbled restart to the season. But this is the first time players have refused to play an NBA game to protest racism, since Bill Russell and his Boston Celtics teammates did it for an exhibition game in Kentucky back in 1961. Fifty-nine years later, the NBA legend voiced his approval for last night's move.

I'm moved by all the @NBA players for standing up for what is right. To my man @TheJetOnTNT I would like to say Thank you for what you did to show your support for the players. I am so proud of you. Keep getting in good trouble. @NBAonTNT @ESPNNBA @espn #NBAPlayoffs ✊????

- TheBillRussell (@RealBillRussell) August 26, 2020

A strike is typically the use of work stoppage to expedite action. In this case, that action is to force both fans and corporations to use their own influence to impact government policy that will stop racist police violence and practices.

One day in, the league, player's association, and corporate sponsors all have supported the players' protest. Broadcasters were supportive, with TNT commentator and league vet Kenny Smith walking off set in solidarity, and former player Chris Webber emotionally talking about the issue on-air.

But there was a telling detail in the league's support, when it said the games were being postponed, not canceled. It assumed the protest was temporary and normalcy will return as soon as this week. But what if it didn't? It certainly wasn't guaranteed, as reports emerged some players discussed cancelling the playoffs completely. What happens next time?

Every word Chris Webber says here should be listened to. pic.twitter.com/L2mKUqEHL1

- Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) August 26, 2020

Nandi Welch, Rupture's cofounder and head of business strategy, says this protest will force specificity on brands who have been generally supportive of Black Lives Matter over the past few months.

"Companies and brands stepped in to say they stood with Black Lives Matter, and showed it by donating to organizations like the NAACP," says Welch. "Then the ones who wanted to go a step further said they would work to take on structural racism. But one thing you haven't heard many companies talk about is the police violence that triggered this wave. All these things are on the table, but you haven't heard many (brands) say they'd pursue and support policy changes to make this kind of behavior illegal. And that's what this is all about."

The NBA's annual sponsorship revenue alone is worth is more than $1 billion. The players have largely made it clear that they're willing to sacrifice potential earnings for the cause, as any game cancellations will impact the league's bottom line, which will certainly come up in the next collective bargaining agreement, set to be negotiated later this fall.

That type of support isn't without precedent. Witness how quickly Meek Mill was released from prison after 76ers co-owner Michael Rubin and Patriots owner Robert Kraft got involved back in 2018.

Ultimately, the reaction of brands depends on the reaction of fans. All the best intentions aside, corporations are built to survive and grow.

"You hope corporations will find a way to be a cohesive bridge between the players and government and policy," says Welch. "Corporations will do what's best for their shareholders. They'll measure it, they'll do all the research, look at public sentiment, social listening, every indicator to tell them what to do and they'll make a decision based on that public opinion and what will contribute most to their survival."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The one-day sports strike is a wake-up call for every brand profiting from athletes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sports has always been perceived by some as a refuge from the real world. That impulse is what helped drive leagues to return amid the pandemic, so people may be working from home, or have lost their job, or even gotten sick or lost a loved one to COVID-19, but at least they'd have playoff basketball.