Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on in a last few months meaning. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to in a last few months meaning awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of in a last few months meaning, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding in a last few months meaning. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of in a last few months meaning. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of in a last few months meaning, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on in a last few months meaning, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around in a last few months meaning. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of in a last few months meaning.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about in a last few months meaning, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of in a last few months meaning.
Wwe hell in a cell 2020 results full recap and new champions golf wwe hell in a cell 2020 results full recap and new champions raid wwe hell in a cell 2020 results full recap and new champions tour wwe hell in a cell 2020 results full recap and release wwe hell in a cell 2020 results full recap of the pacers wwe hell in a cell 2020 results full recap of the wwe wwe hell in a cell 2020 results today wwe hell in a cell 2020 highlights watch wwe hell in a cell 2020 free online wwe hell in a cell 2020 poster wwe hell in a cell tickets wwe hell in a cell rumors wwe hell in a cell logo wwe hell in a cell results wwe hell in a cell matches wwe hell in a cell logo wwe hell in a cell tickets wwe hell in a cell 2022 wwe hell in a cell 2022 live stream wwe hell in a cell 2022 predictions
WWE Hell in a Cell 2020: Results, full recap and new champions
WWE Hell in a Cell 2020: Results, full recap and new champions
Hell in a Cell may be a "B" pay-per-view -- meaning, not Royal Rumble, WrestleMania or SummerSlam -- but it was one of the most notable WWE events in months. A lot of that is thanks to the main event, where Randy Orton pinned Drew McIntyre to win the WWE Championship.
It's not just that, though. The Miz beat Otis in a head-scratcher of a match to win the Money in the Bank championship, which means we could see an attempted cash in by The Miz sometime soon. And later, Sasha Banks beat Bayley in a great Hell in a Cell bout to win the SmackDown Women's Championship.
We now look ahead to Survivor Series. Taking place on Nov. 22, it'll be a celebration of the Undertaker's 30 years in WWE.
Your new WWE Champ.
WWE
Randy Orton becomes 14x World Champion
Randy Orton pinned Drew McIntyre clean, with an RKO, to become WWE Champion in the show's main event.
The match started quizzically, with Orton, dressed as a cameraman, ambushing McIntyre as McIntyre was entering the Cell. McIntyre fought Orton off, and the match began. After some decent action, Orton cut open the chain that had locked the Cell and tried to retreat. This ended with both Orton and McIntyre on top of the Cell.
After some brawling, the two began to descend by climbing down the side. Orton battered McIntyre, who fell from the Cell through an announcer's table. From here, the match slowed down to a crawl -- but in a good way. The drama from here on out was excellent.
McIntyre did a fantastic job of selling. Orton dragged him back into the ring and setup the RKO. McIntyre countered with a rollup attempt, like the one he used to beat Orton at SummerSlam. He then hit a Claymore on Orton, who rolled outside the ring. McIntyre then threw Orton back into the ring and setup a Claymore. He missed, Orton hit an RKO and became a 14-time world champion.
Rating: 3.75 stars. The first half of the match was average, the second half outstanding.
Bobby Lashley beats Slapjack
This impromptu bout between Bobby Lashley and Retribution's Slapjack was for the United States Championship. After a quick, nothing match, Lashley submitted Slapjack with the Hurt Lock. After the match, Mustafa Ali came to the ring with the rest of Retribution. Lashley single-handedly fought them off, and then the Hurt Business hit the ring. Retribution fled.
Rating: 1 star. RIP Retribution.
Sasha Banks beats Bayley
After a lengthy Hell in a Cell match, Sasha Banks became SmackDown Women's Champion after she made Bayley tap out.
This was a long, back-and-forth match. It was flawed bout, feeling disjointed at times, but ultimately an outstanding one. Banks is absolutely awesome, with creative offense throughout and also some superb selling. She hit Bayley with a number of creative Meteoras throughout -- running up a table, off the ringside into the cage, and so on -- and ultimately won with a Banks Statement augmented with a chair around Bayley's neck.
Bayley did well on her part, too. I've often found her offense unconvincing, and that was an issue at points here. But she was very good when it counted, especially towards the end as the intensity built to the end. It's hard doing a 20 minute-plus Cell match in front of a virtual crowd, and these performers both did great.
Rating: 4 stars. Imperfect, but exceptional.
The Miz pins Otis to win Money in the Bank briefcase
The Miz pinned Otis after Tucker betrayed his Heavy Machinery tag-team partner. Otis smashed Otis in the head with the briefcase when the ref wasn't looking, with the Miz pinning Otis immediately after.
The match leading up to this moment was subaverage. Miz offense is generally weak, and that's made more evident when you're expected to take it seriously against a much larger opponent. John Morrison, Miz' tag partner, intervened at various points, and was ejected moments before Tucker's betrayal.
It was a shocker when Otis won the briefcase, even more so once Roman Reigns became champion. It's hard to imagine a long program between Reigns and Otis, a little easier to see Reigns defeat a challenging Miz.
The fact that Miz won this match makes the cutesy build, which was mostly a comedy skit featuring JBL as adjudicating a spat between Miz and Otis, all the more galling.
Rating: 2 stars.
Jeff Hardy vs. Elias ends with DQ
A SmackDown-quality match with a SmackDown-quality ending.
After an OK match, Hardy hit a Twist of Fate on Elias. He went for a Swanton Bomb but Elias rolled out of the ring and tried to attack Hardy with his guitar. Hardy blocked him, took the guitar and smashed it over Elias' back, leading to an unceremonious DQ.
Rating: 1.5 stars. Just there.
Roman Reigns makes Jey Uso say 'I Quit'
Hell in a Cell opened with Roman Reigns versus Jey Uso, an I Quit match inside a Cell cage. After a long, dramatic bout, Reigns made Jey say "I Quit" when Reigns locked a guillotine onto Jey's twin brother Jimmy.
This match was very similar to their confrontation at Clash of Champions. It started with fantastic back-and-forth action (different from their Clash match, which was almost all Reigns), and then slowed down for the final stretch. Reigns had speared Jey three times and locked on a guillotine, after which Jey was largely motionless. When Jey refused to quit, Reigns hit a Driveby dropkick onto the steel steps, which smashed into Jey's head.
Reigns took the steel steps and laid them atop Jey, telling him to quit. When Jey, who was basically dead, refused, Jimmy ran into the cage (defeating the purpose of having a cage) and begged him to stop. Reigns acted contrite, and shook Jimmy's hand -- before locking on a guillotine, leading to Jey quitting to save Jimmy.
The dynamic action that the first two-thirds of the bout consisted of was excellent. Reigns is a fierce heel, and Jey's offence as an underdog babyface is fantastic. The dramatic highpoint came when Jey brought out a strap and began choking Reigns, who began to pass out. Ultimately, it would be Reigns' guillotine choke moments later that ended Jey.
After the match, Afa and Sika, Reigns' dad and uncle, crowned him the Tribal Chief.
Rating: 3.5 stars. Very good. The storyline was almost identical in concept and execution as last month's match, making it less effective. The last third, where Jey was dead and Reigns was trying to eek an "I Quit" out of him, also could have been trimmed by a few minutes. But the action proceeding it was excellent.
Kickoff Show Results
R-Truth defended his 24/7 Championship on the Kickoff Show, taking on challenger Drew Gulak. Truth pinned Gulak in a short match to retain his title.
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
TikTok Parents Are Taking Advantage of Their Kids. It Needs to Stop
Rachel Barkman's son started accurately identifying different species of mushroom at the age of 2. Together they'd go out into the mossy woods near her home in Vancouver and forage. When it came to occasionally sharing in her TikTok videos her son's enthusiasm and skill for picking mushrooms, she didn't think twice about it -- they captured a few cute moments, and many of her 350,000-plus followers seemed to like it.
That was until last winter, when a female stranger approached them in the forest, bent down and addressed her son, then 3, by name and asked if he could show her some mushrooms.
"I immediately went cold at the realization that I had equipped complete strangers with knowledge of my son that puts him at risk," Barkman said in an interview this past June.
This incident, combined with research into the dangers of sharing too much, made her reevaluate her son's presence online. Starting at the beginning of this year, she vowed not to feature his face in future content.
"My decision was fueled by a desire to protect my son, but also to protect and respect his identity and privacy, because he has a right to choose the way he is shown to the world," she said.
These kinds of dangers have cropped up alongside the rise in child influencers, such as 10-year-old Ryan Kaji of Ryan's World, who has almost 33 million subscribers, with various estimates putting his net worth in the multiple tens of millions of dollars. Increasingly, brands are looking to use smaller, more niche, micro- and nano-influencers, developing popular accounts on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to reach their audiences. And amid this influencer gold rush there's a strong incentive for parents, many of whom are sharing photos and videos of their kids online anyway, to get in on the action.
The increase in the number of parents who manage accounts for their kids -- child influencers' parents are often referred to as "sharents" -- opens the door to exploitation or other dangers. With almost no industry guardrails in place, these parents find themselves in an unregulated wild west. They're the only arbiters of how much exposure their children get, how much work their kids do, and what happens to money earned through any content they feature in.
Instagram didn't respond to multiple requests for comment about whether it takes any steps to safeguard child influencers. A representative for TikTok said the company has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and pointed to policies to protect accounts of users under the age of 16. But these policies don't apply to parents posting with or on behalf of their children. YouTube didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
"When parents share about their children online, they act as both the gatekeeper -- the one tasked with protecting a child's personal information -- and as the gate opener," said Stacey Steinberg, a professor of law at the University of Florida and author of the book Growing Up Shared. As the gate opener, "they benefit, gaining both social and possibly financial capital by their online disclosures."
The reality is that some parents neglect the gatekeeping and leave the gate wide open for any internet stranger to walk through unchecked. And walk through they do.
Meet the sharents
Mollie is an aspiring dancer and model with an Instagram following of 122,000 people. Her age is ambiguous but she could be anywhere from 11-13, meaning it's unlikely she's old enough to meet the social media platform's minimum age requirement. Her account is managed by her father, Chris, whose own account is linked in her bio, bringing things in line with Instagram's policy. (Chris didn't respond to a request for comment.)
You don't have to travel far on Instagram to discover accounts such as Mollie's, where grown men openly leer at preteen girls. Public-facing, parent-run accounts dedicated to dancers and gymnasts -- who are under the age of 13 and too young to have accounts of their own -- number in the thousands. (To protect privacy, we've chosen not to identify Mollie, which isn't her real name, or any other minors who haven't already appeared in the media.)
Parents use these accounts, which can have tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of followers, to raise their daughters' profiles by posting photos of them posing and demonstrating their flexibility in bikinis and leotards. The comment sections are often flooded with sexualized remarks. A single, ugly word appeared under one group shot of several young girls in bikinis: "orgy."
Some parents try to contain the damage by limiting comments on posts that attract too much attention. The parent running one dancer account took a break from regular scheduling to post a pastel-hued graphic reminding other parents to review their followers regularly. "After seeing multiple stories and posts from dance photographers we admire about cleaning up followers, I decided to spend time cleaning," read the caption. "I was shocked at how many creeps got through as followers."
But "cleaning up" means engaging in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole to keep unwanted followers at bay, and it ignores the fact that you don't need to be following a public account to view the posts. Photos of children are regularly reposted on fan or aggregator accounts, over which parents have no control, and they can also be served up through hashtags or through Instagram's discovery algorithms.
The simple truth is that publicly posted content is anyone's for the taking. "Once public engagement happens, it is very hard, if not impossible, to really put meaningful boundaries around it," said Leah Plunkett, author of the book Sharenthood and a member of the faculty at Harvard Law School.
This concern is at the heart of the current drama concerning the TikTok account @wren.eleanor. Wren is an adorable blonde 3-year-old girl, and the account, which has 17.3 million followers, is managed by her mother, Jacquelyn, who posts videos almost exclusively of her child.
Concerned onlookers have pointed Jacquelyn toward comments that appear to be predatory, and have warned her that videos in which Wren is in a bathing suit, pretending to insert a tampon, or eating various foodstuffs have more watches, likes and saves than other content. They claim her reluctance to stop posting in spite of their warnings demonstrates she's prioritizing the income from her account over Wren's safety. Jacquelyn didn't respond to several requests for comment.
Last year, the FBI ran a campaign in which it estimated that there were 500,000 predators online every day -- and that's just in the US. Right now, across social platforms, we're seeing the growth of digital marketplaces that hinge on child exploitation, said Plunkett. She doesn't want to tell other parents what to do, she added, but she wants them to be aware that there's "a very real, very pressing threat that even innocent content that they put up about their children is very likely to be repurposed and find its way into those marketplaces."
Naivete vs. exploitation
When parent influencers started out in the world of blogging over a decade ago, the industry wasn't exploitative in the same way it is today, said Crystal Abidin, an academic from Curtin University who specializes in internet cultures. When you trace the child influencer industry back to its roots, what you find is parents, usually mothers, reaching out to one another to connect. "It first came from a place of care among these parent influencers," she said.
Over time, the industry shifted, centering on children more and more as advertising dollars flowed in and new marketplaces formed.
Education about the risks hasn't caught up, which is why people like Sarah Adams, a Vancouver mom who runs the TikTok account @mom.uncharted, have taken it upon themselves to raise the flag on those risks. "My ultimate goal is just have parents pause and reflect on the state of sharenting right now," she said.
But as Mom Uncharted, Adams is also part of a wider unofficial and informal watchdog group of internet moms and child safety experts shedding light on the often disturbing way in which some parents are, sometimes knowingly, exploiting their children online.
The troubling behavior uncovered by Adams and others suggests there's more than naivete at play -- specifically when parents sign up for and advertise services that let people buy "exclusive" or "VIP" access to content featuring their children.
Some parent-run social media accounts that Adams has found linked out to a site called SelectSets, which lets the parents sell photo sets of their children. One account offered sets with titles such as "2 little princesses." SelectSets has described the service as "a classy and professional" option for influencers to monetize content, allowing them to "avoid the stigma often associated with other platforms."
Over the last few weeks, SelectSets has gone offline and no owner could be traced for comment.
In addition to selling photos, many parent-run dancer accounts, Mollie's included, allow strangers to send the dancers swimwear and underwear from the dancers' Amazon wish lists, or money to "sponsor" them to "realize their dream" or support them on their "journeys."
While there's nothing technically illegal about anything these parents are doing, they're placing their children in a gray area that's not explicitly sexual but that many people would consider to be sexualized. The business model of using an Amazon wish list is one commonly embraced by online sugar babies who accept money and gifts from older men.
"Our Conditions of Use and Sale make clear that users of Amazon Services must be 18 or older or accompanied by a parent or guardian," said an Amazon spokesperson in a statement. "In rare cases where we are made aware that an account has been opened by a minor without permission, we close the account."
Adams says it's unlikely to be other 11-year-olds sending their pocket money to these girls so they attend their next bikini modeling shoot. "Who the fuck do you think is tipping these kids?" she said. "It's predators who are liking the way you exploit your child and giving them all the content they need."
Turning points
Plunkett distinguishes between parents who are casually sharing content that features their kids and parents who are sharing for profit, an activity she describes as "commercial sharenting."
"You are taking your child, or in some cases, your broader family's private or intimate moments, and sharing them digitally, in the hope of having some kind of current or future financial benefit," she said.
No matter the parent's hopes or intentions, any time children appear in public-facing social media content, that content has the potential to go viral, and when it does, parents have a choice to either lean in and monetize it or try to rein it in.
During Abidin's research -- in which she follows the changing activities of the same influencers over time -- she's found that many influencer parents reach a turning point. It can be triggered by something as simple as other children at school being aware of their child's celebrity or their child not enjoying it anymore, or as serious as being involved in a car chase while trying to escape fans (an occurrence recounted to Abidin by one of her research subjects).
One influencer, Katy Rose Pritchard, who has almost 92,000 Instagram followers, decided to stop showing her children's faces on social media this year after she discovered they were being used to create role-playing accounts. People had taken photos of her children that she'd posted and used them to create fictional profiles of children for personal gratification, which she said in a post made her feel "violated."
All these examples highlight the different kinds of threats sharents are exposing their children to. Plunkett describes three "buckets" of risk tied to publicly sharing content online. The first and perhaps most obvious are risks involving criminal and/or dangerous behavior, posing a direct threat to the child.
The second are indirect risks, where content posted featuring children can be taken, reused, analyzed or repurposed by people with nefarious motives. Consequences include anything from bullying to harming future job prospects to millions of people having access to children's medical information -- a common trope on YouTube is a video with a melodramatic title and thumbnail involving a child's trip to the hospital, in which influencer parents with sick kids will document their health journeys in blow-by-blow detail.
The third set of risks are probably the least talked about, but they involve potential harm to a child's sense of self. If you're a child influencer, how you see yourself as a person and your ability to develop into an adult is "going to be shaped and in some instances impeded by the fact that your parents are creating this public performance persona for you," said Plunkett.
Often children won't be aware of what this public persona looks like to the audience and how it's being interpreted. They may not even be aware it exists. But at some point, as happened with Barkman, the private world in which content is created and the public world in which it's consumed will inevitably collide. At that point, the child will be thrust into the position of confronting the persona that's been created for them.
"As kids get older, they naturally want to define themselves on their own terms, and if parents have overshared about them in public spaces, that can be difficult, as many will already have notions about who that child is or what that child may like," said Steinberg. "These notions, of course, may be incorrect. And some children may value privacy and wish their life stories were theirs -- not their parents -- to tell."
Savannah and Cole LaBrant have documented nearly everything about their children's lives.
Jim Spellman/WireImage
This aspect of having their real-life stories made public is a key factor distinguishing children working in social media from children working in the professional entertainment industry, who usually play fictional roles. Many children who will become teens and adults in the next couple of decades will have to reckon with the fact that their parents put their most vulnerable moments on the internet for the world to see -- their meltdowns, their humiliation, their most personal moments.
One influencer family, the LaBrants, were forced to issue a public apology in 2019 after they played an April Fools' Day Joke on their 6-year-old daughter Everleigh. The family pretended they were giving her dog away, eliciting tears throughout the video. As a result, many viewers felt that her parents, Sav and Cole, had inflicted unnecessary distress on her.
In the past few months, parents who film their children during meltdowns to demonstrate how to calm them down have found themselves the subject of ire on parenting Subreddits. Their critics argue that it's unfair to post content of children when they're at their most vulnerable, as it shows a lack of respect for a child's right to privacy.
Privacy-centric parenting
Even the staunchest advocates of child privacy know and understand the parental instinct of wanting to share their children's cuteness and talent with the world. "Our kids are the things usually we're the most proud of, the most excited about," said Adams. "It is normal to want to show them off and be proud of them."
When Adams started her account two years ago, she said her views were seen as more polarizing. But increasingly people seem to relate and share her concerns. Most of these are "average parents," naive to the risks they're exposing their kids to, but some are "commercial sharents" too.
Even though they don't always see eye to eye, the private conversations she's had with parents of children (she doesn't publicly call out anyone) with massive social media presences have been civil and productive. "I hope it opens more parents' eyes to the reality of the situation, because frankly this is all just a large social experiment," she said. "And it's being done on our kids. And that just doesn't seem like a good idea."
For Barkman, it's been "surprisingly easy, and hugely beneficial" to stop sharing content about her son. She's more present, and focuses only on capturing memories she wants to keep for herself.
"When motherhood is all consuming, it sometimes feels like that's all you have to offer, so I completely understand how we have slid into oversharing our children," she said. "It's a huge chunk of our identity and our hearts."
But Barkman recognizes the reality of the situation, which is that she doesn't know who's viewing her content and that she can't rely on tech platforms to protect her son. "We are raising a generation of children who have their entire lives broadcast online, and the newness of social media means we don't have much data on the impacts of that reality on children," she said. "I feel better acting with caution and letting my son have his privacy so that he can decide how he wants to be perceived by the world when he's ready and able."
Quiet quitting the work life debate is having another baby quiet quitting the work life debate is having another child quiet quitting the work life debate is having another cup quiet quitting the work life debate is having gas quiet quitting the work life debate is having covid quiet quitting the work life debate is jesus quiet the noise quiet quitting meaning if your coworkers are quiet quitting quiet quitting meme
Quiet Quitting: The Work-Life Debate Is Having Another Viral Moment
Quiet Quitting: The Work-Life Debate Is Having Another Viral Moment
Months after "the Great Resignation" entered the collective vocabulary, the question of what, exactly, a person owes their employer is having yet another viral moment.
At the end of July, @zaidlepppelin posted on TikTok about a phrase called "quiet quitting." It's the idea of meeting the requirements of a job and stopping there. The video has since racked up more than 3.4 million views, while the hashtag has more than 21 million views from other TikTokers chiming in with their views on the broader idea, and even the term itself.
The concept is reigniting another debate over work-life balance, with proponents saying it's just a necessary call for boundaries while critics bemoan a perceived lack of initiative and slacker mentality.
As always, it's not clear cut. Here's what you need to know about quiet quitting.
What is quiet quitting?
Quiet quitting is the idea of doing your job and nothing more. In the original viral TikTok, @zaidlepppelin described it like this: "You're still performing your duties but you're no longer subscribing to the hustle culture mentality that work has to be your life. The reality is it's not, and your worth as a person is not defined by your labor."
@zaidleppelin On quiet quitting #workreform♬ original sound - ruby
Is quiet quitting new?
In a word, no.
"It's popular now because of the hashtag," said Jha'nee Carter, who goes by @_thehrqueen on TikTok where she talks about leadership and employee advocacy.
Although the phrase "quiet quitting" has only gained traction in the last few weeks, the struggle to find a balance between work and personal life is far older. The National Labor Union first (if unsuccessfully) asked Congress to establish the eight-hour work day in 1866.
A century later, American pop group The Vogues sang about the bliss of being off the clock in their 1965 song Five O'Clock World: "It's a five o'clock world when the whistle blows. No one owns a piece of my time."
These days, you're more apt to hear about achieving a healthy "work-life balance."
The trend shows up globally at times, too. In July 2021, Brookings wrote about the "lying-flat" movement in China, where a culture that prioritizes overwork started to clash with a feeling of stagnation among workers, particularly among younger people. In April of that year, the concept went viral.
"For some, 'lying flat' promises release from the crush of life and work in a fast-paced society and technology sector where competition is unrelenting. For China's leadership, however, this movement of passive resistance to the national drive for development is a worrying trend," the article said, also explaining that China has aimed to "end its reliance on imported technology," hence driving a particular pressure in the tech sector.
What's the controversy?
Some of the controversy around quiet quitting surrounds the question of whether this is a healthy approach to your job, or whether you're being a slacker.
"The tether to the workplace … the expectations and exploitation of employers is so extreme now, that just doing your job is considered quitting," said Leigh Henderson. You might have run into Henderson on TikTok as @hrmanifesto, where she uses her more than 15 years of experience in the corporate world to talk about everything from dealing with your toxic job to interviewing for a new one.
She was initially confused by the idea of quiet quitting, thinking how is that "different from just work life balance, creating boundaries, having priorities, and just having a life?" Henderson says it should the be responsibility of employers to keep their employees engaged.
And on TikTok, people have questioned whether anyone should be expected to put in more work than they're being compensated for.
Not everyone sees it that way. Kevin O'Leary from ABC's Shark Tank took to TikTok to say, "Quiet quitting is a really bad idea. If you're a quiet quitter, you're a loser." O'Leary did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a video on CNBC, he said you're hired at a company to make the business work, and you should go above and beyond because you want to – and that's how to get ahead.
@kevinolearytv What are your thoughts on quiet quitting? #kevinoleary#quietquitting#entrepreneur#career#careeradvice♬ original sound - Mr. Wonderful
TikTokers have pointed out that to the ears of an employer, quiet quitting could sound like suddenly getting less out of their employees, regardless of whether those employees were getting paid to do the extra work anyway.
What's more, the term itself – quitting – has a negative connotation. Henderson thinks of it as "quiet survival," and it's something she's done in her own career. In a follow up TikTok, Henderson said, "I was saving myself from the toxic work environment and protecting myself from the toxic work environment that my employer not only established and facilitated but continually benefited from."
Why are people talking about quiet quitting now?
The easy answer is that this particular TikTok went viral at the end of July. But circumstances have been ripe for this for much longer, according to Matt Walden, managing partner at Infinity Consulting Solutions, who has been working in the recruiting space for more than two decades. He pins some of this moment to burnout.
For one, Walden looks to the pandemic – as employees shifted to remote work, often it could be more difficult to compartmentalize work and home life. It's easy to keep your laptop open and answer a few extra emails while cooking dinner, perhaps.
"Work from home was a blessing for many. And for others, it had people working more than they've ever worked, unknowingly, in isolation," Walden said.
Quiet quitting also comes in the wake of the Great Resignation, the term for the phenomenon of American workers quitting their jobs in record numbers, often to pursue better pay, benefits and flexibility, or even just to dodge going back to an office. A July report from McKinsey called it the "quitting trend that just won't quit." Although open jobs in the US fell to 10.7 million in June from 11.25 in May, the report said it's likely openings won't return to a more normal range for a while.
Another possible facet is a backlash to hustle culture – the mentality that calls for optimizing every minute of your life for productivity and glorifies non-stop work.
Henderson also pointed out that there's a whopping four generations in the workforce now, bringing with them different perspectives, attitudes and experiences which inform their relationship with work.
"Make no mistake that Gen Z employees watched those Gen X parents stick the finger right to corporate America," Henderson said.
Who is quiet quitting?
While there are no numbers on quiet quitting, Walden said he wouldn't characterize this as a tidal wave trend. Though Gen Z is being largely associated with quiet quitting, demographic breakdowns from the Great Resignation show they're not the only generation reappraising work.
And not everyone has the luxury of quiet quitting.
"In order to climb that corporate ladder as a person of color, I believe that it's a necessity to go above and beyond," Carter said, talking about how those in minority groups, like people of color, don't always have the same resources available to them, so upping their skills, getting in the right rooms with the right people to network, and the like takes more work. She also says it takes learning to advocate for yourself in order to not end up burned out and exploited.
@_thehrqueen Can quietly quitting destroy your career? ✨ #hrqueen#quietquitting#iquit#corporateamerica#mentorforu#youngprofessionals#hrlife#hrtok#careertips#careeradvice#careeradvicedaily#leadershipdevelopment#ReTokforNature♬ Level Up - Kwe the Artist
Will fed continue to raise rates will the fed continue to raise interest rates will the fed continue to raise rates will the fed continue to raise interest rates will fed increase interest rates will federer play wimbledon 2022 will fedex deliver to a po box will federal student loans be suspended again will fedex pack my item will federer retire
Will Fed Continue to Push Interest Rates Up? Here's What the Latest Inflation Stats Tell Us
Will Fed Continue to Push Interest Rates Up? Here's What the Latest Inflation Stats Tell Us
This story is part of Recession Help Desk, CNET's coverage of how to make smart money moves in an uncertain economy.
What's happening
Inflation remained unchanged in July. If prices remain steady, or decrease, throughout August, the Fed may slow the rollout of interest rate hikes.
Why it matters
If the Fed continues to drive up interest rates, there will be consequences -- most likely an uptick in unemployment, and an increase in interest rates for mortgages, credit cards and loans.
What it means for you
Soaring consumer prices, tumbling stocks, increased costs to borrow money and the threat of layoffs could prove particularly devastating for low- and middle-income Americans.
The Consumer Price Index showed that inflation slowed in July, though prices remain at record highs, with significant upticks in food and shelter over the last month. The Federal Reserve has been on a crusade to cool rising prices since the end of last year, but it's too soon to say whether -- in light of inflation's slowing pace in July -- we're seeing the fruits of its labor.
The Federal Reserve's next meeting is in September, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said he anticipates additional rate increases throughout the year. But, depending on inflation's pace over the next month, that could change. If inflation improves significantly in August, the Fed may slow the rollout of interest rate hikes -- or, at least, raise interest rates by a smaller amount, compared to the two previous hikes.
Raising interest rates is the main action the Fed can take to try to counter high inflation. When it costs more to borrow -- as with credit cards,mortgages and other loans -- consumers have less spending power and will buy fewer items, decreasing the "demand" side of the supply-demand equation, theoretically helping to lower prices.
Experts worry that further increases to the cost of borrowing money could contract the economy too much, sending us into a recession: a shrinking, rather than growing, economy. The Fed acknowledges the adverse effects of this restrictive monetary policy.
"We are highly attentive to inflation risks and determined to take the measures necessary to return inflation to our 2% longer run goal," Powell said during July's press conference. "This process is likely to involve a period of below-trend economic growth, and some softening in labor market conditions. But such outcomes are likely necessary to restore price stability and to set the stage for maximum employment and stable prices over the longer run."
As rates rise and inflation continues to swell, you may be wondering how we got here. We'll break down everything you need to know about what's causing record high inflation and how the Fed hopes to bring levels back down.
What's going on with inflation?
In July, inflation surged to 8.5% over the previous year, a slight decline from June's 9.1% reading, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Gas prices declined significantly by 7.7% in July, but that was offset by increasing prices of food and shelter. Food increased by 1.1% last month, the latest in several month's worth of price increases.
During periods of high inflation, your dollar has less purchasing power, making everything you buy more expensive, even though you're likely not getting paid more. In fact, more Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and wages aren't keeping up with inflation rates.
Why is inflation so high right now?
In short, a lot of this can be attributed to the pandemic. In March 2020, the onset of COVID-19 caused the US economy to shut down. Millions of employees were laid off, many businesses had to close their doors and the global supply chain was abruptly put on pause. This caused the flow of goods produced and manufactured abroad and shipped to the US to cease for at least two weeks, and in many cases, for months, according to Pete Earle, an economist at the American Institute for Economic Research.
But the reduction in supply was met with increased demand as Americans started purchasing durable goods to replace the services they used prior to the pandemic, said Josh Bivens, director of research at the Economic Policy Institute. "The pandemic put distortions on both the demand and supply side of the US economy," Bivens said.
Though the immediate impacts of COVID-19 on the US economy are easing, labor disruptions and supply-and-demand imbalances persist, including shortages in microchips, steel, equipment and other goods, causing ongoing slowdowns in manufacturing and construction. Unanticipated shocks to the global economy have made things worse -- particularly subsequent COVID-19 variants, lockdowns in China (which restrict the availability of goods in the US) and the war in Ukraine (which is affecting gas and food prices), according to the World Bank.
Powell confirmed the World Bank's findings at the Fed's June meeting, calling these external factors challenging because they are outside of the central bank's control.
Some lawmakers have also accused corporations of seizing on inflation as an excuse to increase prices more than necessary, a form of price gouging.
Why is the Federal Reserve raising rates?
With inflation hitting record highs, the Fed is under a great deal of pressure from policymakers and consumers to get the situation under control. One of the Fed's primary objectives is to promote price stability and maintain inflation at a rate of 2%.
By raising interest rates, the Fed aims to slow down the economy by making borrowing more expensive. In turn, consumers, investors and businesses pause on making investments and purchases with credit, which leads to reduced economic demand, theoretically reeling in prices and balancing the scales of supply and demand.
The Fed raised the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point in March, followed by a half of a percentage point in May and three-quarters of a percentage point in mid-June. In July, the Fed raised rates by another three-quarters of a percentage point.
The federal funds rate is the interest rate that banks charge each other for borrowing and lending. And there's a trickle-down effect: When it costs banks more to borrow from one another, they offset it by raising rates on their consumer loan products. That's how the Fed effectively drives up interest rates in the US economy.
The federal funds rate now sits at a range of 2.25% to 2.5%. But the Fed thinks this needs to go up significantly to see progress on inflation, likely into the 3.5% to 4% range, according to Powell. The Fed's latest estimate is that, by the end of this year, the federal funds rate will sit at a range of 3.25% to 3.50%.
However, hiking interest rates can only reduce inflationary pressures so much, especially when the current factors are largely on the supply side -- and are worldwide. A growing number of economists say that the situation is more complicated to get under control, and that the Fed's monetary policy alone is not enough.
Could rising interest rates spark a recession?
We can't yet determine how these policy moves will broadly affect prices and wages. But with more rate hikes projected this year, there's concern that the Fed will overreact by raising rates too aggressively, which could spark a more painful economic downturn or create a recession.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, which hasn't yet officially determined if the US is in a recession, defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months." That means a declining gross domestic product, or GDP, alongside diminishing production and retail sales, as well as shrinking incomes and lower employment.
Pushing up rates too quickly might reduce consumer demand too much and unduly stifle economic growth, leading businesses to lay off workers or stop hiring. That would drive up unemployment, leading to another problem for the Fed, as it's also tasked with maintaining maximum employment.
In a general sense, inflation and unemployment have an inverse relationship. When more people are working, they have the means to spend, leading to an increase in demand and elevated prices. However, when inflation is low, joblessness tends to be higher. But with prices remaining sky-high, many investors are increasingly worried about a coming period of stagflation -- the toxic combination of slow economic growth with high unemployment and inflation.
Here's what higher interest rates mean for you
For the past two years, interest rates had been at historic lows, partially because the Fed slashed rates in 2020 to keep the US economy afloat in the face of lockdowns. The Fed kept interest rates near zero, a move made only once before, during the financial crisis of 2008.
For the average consumer, increased interest rates means buying a car or a home will get more expensive, since you'll pay more in interest. Higher rates could make it more expensive to refinance your mortgage or student loans. Moreover, the Fed hikes will drive up interest rates on credit cards, meaning that your debt on outstanding balances will go up.
Securities and crypto markets could also be negatively impacted by the Fed's decisions to raise rates. When interest rates go up, money is more expensive to borrow, leading to less liquidity in both the crypto and stock markets. Investor psychology can also cause markets to slide, as cautious investors may move their money out of stocks or crypto into more conservative investments, such as government bonds.
On the flip side, rising interest rates could mean a slightly better return on your savings accounts. Interest rates on savings deposits are directly affected by the federal funds rate. Several banks have already increased annual percentage yields, or APYs, on their savings accounts and certificates of deposit in the wake of the Fed's rate hikes.
We'll keep you updated on the evolving economic situation as it develops.
The future of healthcare future healthcare future health biobank what the future of computers will look like what is the future of work what the future holds meaning what the future has in store what the hell what the peeper saw what s the weather
What the Future of Health Looks Like for Apple
What the Future of Health Looks Like for Apple
Apple's Health app keeps evolving, with aspirations to be a complete combination personal data archive, medical liaison and insight engine. But the goals, while ambitious, aren't fully realized yet. iOS 16 and WatchOS 9 are adding medication management and multistage sleep tracking to a growing list of features. But what comes next, and will it start to become a tool that interfaces with doctors even more than it has?
Apple just published a multipage health report (PDF), which aims to detail where the company sees its health focus heading on the iPhone and the Apple Watch. The report covers the app, research studies and initiatives with medical organizations.
As Google prepares to release a Pixel Watch that will connect to Fitbit's features and services, Apple looks to be strengthening its position by expanding beyond the watch to a larger spectrum of health services. Already, Apple Health and Fitness Plus are evolving into services you don't need an Apple Watch to use.
When will Health start to become an extension of how I connect with my own doctors? Will sleep tracking offer a doorway to other health insights? And why doesn't Apple have its own equivalent of the "readiness score" used by Fitbit and Oura?
Apple's vice president of health, Dr. Sumbul Desai, spoke with CNET about the goals of Apple Health and where goals are being set next. She sees the blend of lifestyle with clinical data, medication data and an increasing number of metrics in one place as helping future insights in other health measurements over time.
"You have to do it in a really thoughtful and meaningful way," Desai said. "Because there are also correlations you can make that are incorrect. That's where the work is, making sure that when you make those connections that they are correct, grounded in the science and make sense to the user."
Medication tracking on iOS 16 looks like another step to bring medical histories onto Health.
Apple
Where does Apple Health meet your doctor?
As I've found over the last few months, over several surgeries and doctor visits, my own medical care doesn't often connect with my wearable and phone apps. Apple's been aiming to make strides to connect Apple Health with medical providers, but the framework isn't fully there yet for digital health platforms. A lot of Apple's promised benefits are in identifying long-term data patterns and insights.
"I do think how they interact with each other is really important," said Desai, who points to the new tracking of atrial fibrillation patterns over time in Watch OS 9. "We are actually taking how much time you're in AFib and correlating it to your lifestyle. How much you're sleeping. How much you're moving, you'll see the changes in AFib. If you're using Mindful Minutes, do you see a change."
Apple has tried making data sharing easier with doctors, but right now it still doesn't go far enough. At the medical group where I'm a patient, for instance, there's no obvious way to share the data I'm collecting in Apple Health through the patient portal.
Sleep tracking is gaining sleep stages in WatchOS 9. Will that bring a wave of other health insights down the road?
Apple
Sleep as the next frontier?
Apple's addition of sleep stage-based sleep tracking in the upcoming Watch OS 9 looks to close the gap on other fitness trackers like those from Fitbit, Samsung and Oura. Apple's been pulling new features for the Apple Watch from work in some of the company's ongoing heart research studies, and sleep could end up being a place that evolves next.
"What I'm really excited to learn from a scientific standpoint is, does the amount of sleep that you're getting in certain stages, like core [replenishing sleep], does that actually translate to benefit during the day when you're moving?" Desai said. "Are there certain phenotypes of certain people who have more benefit versus others? There's so much to tackle from a research standpoint there. We would never put anything out until we knew we kind of had some scientific grounding. The whole causation-correlation thing can get very tricky."
Desai suggested future research combining sleep stage data with Apple's ongoing heart and move data from its ongoing study will possibly provide more insights, "but we're still a ways away from that."
Could Apple ever develop its own readiness score?
One thing Apple's evolving and elaborate set of Health insights currently doesn't have is any sort of attempt at a distilled score, or personal health rating. Fitbit, Oura, and a number of other wearables have daily personal scores derived from a variety of individual metrics. I asked Desai whether Apple might pursue a similar idea anytime soon. While it sounds like a direction Apple Health could head in, it also seems like Apple is still trying to lock down the best path to get there.
"It's a really good question. I think the answer is, to be honest, is we don't have a firm POV yet," Desai said. "We want to understand the science behind that, and what can we understand and glean from a scientific standpoint."
Desai suggests that the health measurements, and their meanings, can vary. "HRV [heart rate variability] is a great metric. I'm super fascinated by HRV. But HRV can be changed based on multiple reasons." She suggested that Apple's eventual evolution of its insights will need to come with clear guidance, too.
"I think for us, we want to be able to provide actionable information. So to understand to do that, you actually have to be able to draw it back to, what we think is actually causing that? We are really trying to understand the science behind all of these different metrics and focus on how we provide insights that we know we can back up."
On whether Apple Health could come to other non-Apple devices
Apple's aiming for Health to be a comprehensive, secure system for anyone to use, but it still flows through Apple hardware, which means a portion of the population will always be left out. I asked Desai whether Apple Health might ever be available beyond iPhones.
"We're always looking at ways to support the ecosystem. We just want to make sure we can support that in a private and secure way. That's fundamentally what drives our decision making," Desai said. "We have a ton of things in the App Store ecosystem that are super interesting that people are doing, and we're very supportive of supporting that work.
"Honestly, we make a lot of decisions driven by privacy. And there's a lot of things we choose not to do and choose to do, based upon that."
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
How cell phones evolved how have phones evolved make samsung phone more like pixel from iphone to pixel how to pixelate an image on iphone from iphone to pixel galaxy s22 vs iphone 13 galaxy s22 ultra vs iphone 13 pro max iphone galaxy s21 iphone galaxy watch 4 iphone galaxy s20
iPhone, Galaxy S, Pixel: How smartphones evolved to dominate your life
iPhone, Galaxy S, Pixel: How smartphones evolved to dominate your life
This story is part of The 2010s: A Decade in Review, a series on the memes, people, products, movies and so much more that have influenced the 2010s.
Steve Jobs' pitch for the original iPhone in 2007 as a phone, music player and internet communicator was a landmark moment in the tech world. It crystalized the iPhone's almost mythic reputation from the start -- remember the nickname, the Jesus phone? -- and helped usher in the idea that smartphones could be chic. But looking back, those three capabilities barely scratched the surface of what we can do with the modern smartphone.
What can you do with one now? Everything.
"We never imagined how a decade later iPhone would become such an essential part of our lives, from streaming TV shows and playing games, to finding directions when traveling, to managing health and fitness, to opening garages in smart homes, to sharing beautiful memories with stunning photos and videos," Phil Schiller, head of marketing for Apple, said in an email.
As CNET explores the impact of various technologies over the past decade, none has changed our lives as dramatically as the smartphone. When the original iPhone launched, and the first Android phone, the G1, followed in 2008, they were still the stuff of gadget enthusiasts with loads of disposable income. Even 10 years ago, at the launch of the Motorola Droid -- the first Android phone to enjoy mass appeal, thanks to a massive marketing blitz by Verizon Wireless -- we were just getting started with the potential that came with smartphones and mobile applications.
Nowadays we take for granted that we have a virtual supercomputer in our pockets. Our iPhones and Android handsets let us hail a car right to our location, draw from a library of hundreds of thousands of television shows and movies stored online, or livestream our silly antics to millions across the world. You can shoot down cartoonish avatars of your friends in Fortnite. They've literally been revolutionary, with secure messaging apps playing a role in the Arab Spring movement in the early 2010s and the Hong Kong protests against China playing out today.
Think about it: What's the one thing you can't leave your home without? Chances are, it's your smartphone. It's become such a critical part of our lives that we're starting to question whether we're spending too much time on them. Tech giants like Apple and Google have even introduced ways to tell you how much time you're spending on your phone -- with apps found on the phone.
"It's astonishing how quickly we've gone from being astonished to having an always-connected supercomputer in our pockets to somewhat resenting having a supercomputer in our pockets," said Avi Greengart, an analyst at research firm Techsponential.
No matter where you stand on the spectrum of smartphone dependence, it's undeniable the staggering impact they've had on society, culture and how we live our lives.
"A lot has changed since 1.0," Stephanie Cuthbertson, director of Android, said during her Google I/O keynote speech in May. "Smartphones have evolved from an early vision to this integral tool in our lives, and they are incredibly helpful."
Clumsy to coveted
Smartphones had been around for years before iPhones and Android handsets became the default mobile devices of choice. The white-collar crowd happily tapped on the physical keys of their BlackBerrys. Old-school gadget enthusiasts would've proudly shown off their Palm Treos or their "Pocket PC" phones (with a stripped-down version of Windows jammed behind a smaller screen). Never mind that these devices required a precise stylus to navigate.
With the original iPhone, Steve Jobs and Apple changed how we interact with the world.
Getty Images
In 2007, Jobs and the iPhone changed the meaning of a smartphone, making a touchscreen device intuitive -- and fun -- to use, thanks in large part to the full browser experience and tricks like pinch to zoom. It's the only phone that I could pull out at a bar and legitimately impress women with. (That still wasn't enough help.)
In July of 2008, Apple introduced its App Store, opening it up to third-party apps. Google would follow with the G1 smartphone (also known as the HTC Dream) and its own app store a few months later. The G1 catered more toward gadget enthusiasts and lacked the mass appeal of the iPhone, but it was no less influential as the launchpad for Android.
Today, there are more than 2.5 billion active Android devices out there, making Google's OS the most dominant platform in the world.
"Today, everyone has a smartphone, and that's amazing," said Peter Chou, co-founder and former CEO of HTC, which built the G1, who stood on stage with Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page when the device was unveiled.
But it wasn't until the debut of the original Droid, which next month celebrates its 10th anniversary, that Android catapulted into the mainstream, thanks in part to a huge marketing campaign from partners Google, Verizon and Motorola.
Upping the ante even further, Samsung jumped into Android in 2010 with a willingness to build up its Galaxy S franchise by way of an even more impressive marketing push, which created the two-horse dynamic we see today (Apple vs. Samsung, Apple's iOS vs. Google's Android).
"It's exciting to reflect on 10 years ago launching the first Galaxy S smartphone," said Drew Blackard, head of product management for Samsung Electronics America. "Over the past decade, we've introduced a number of industry-leading innovations that have given our consumers a better mobile experience and changed the way we think about smartphones."
From fart apps to limitless videos
The explosion of smartphone demand wasn't driven just by increasingly advanced, and bigger, hardware. The handset's Swiss Army knife utility came from the sheer number of programs available to us. It took Apple's App Store and the Google Play Store about eight years each to surpass 2 million apps, from standbys such as Instagram and Angry Birds to obscure apps for bird watching.
It's easy to forget that the early experimental days included fart apps that raked in $10,000 a day or useless virtual lighter apps. At that point Android, which initially didn't have the same oversight that Apple gave iOS, was a real Wild Wild West, with tons of junk apps.
You'd never be able to watch all that's available on video streaming sites, even if you stared at your phone all day.
Sean Hollister/CNET
That's a far cry from the utility of apps today. You pretty much can't get lost, thanks to Google Maps. Protestors use secure messaging platforms like Signal and WhatsApp to coordinate demonstrations. Uber and Lyft mean you're never stuck without a ride -- even a helicopter ride. Apps like Life360 or Disaster Alert can literally save your life.
Entertainment buffs, meanwhile, would need several lifetimes to watch the countless hours of programming found on apps from Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video and HBO Go, among others -- with new options such as Apple TV Plus and Disney Plus emerging all the time.
Societal changes
When Samsung unveiled the original Galaxy Note in 2011, the then-gargantuan 5.3-inch display provided rich fodder for endless mockery. Remember, the first iPhone had a 3.5-inch display.
Today, the original Note seems quaint in its diminutive stature. Samsung's latest, the Galaxy Note 10, rocks a 6.8-inch display, while the iPhone 11 Pro Max features a 6.5-inch display.
Nowadays, smartphones are almost too large to hold in one hand.
Juan Garzon/CNET
"The desire for more screen in your hand has exceeded the grasp of your hand," Greengart said.
When the world was transitioning to all-touchscreen phones, there was a constant debate about whether people could let go of buttons. Back in 2009, handset makers were still experimenting with different ways to cram QWERTY keyboards onto handsets, said Gartner analyst Tuong Nguyen. The G1, for instance, had a slide-out physical keyboard.
Many of us can now blind touch-type on a display by memory.
Smartphones are also notable for what they've destroyed as much as what they've enabled. Those little supercomputers have left a wake of failed businesses over the years.
When was the last time you saw a point-and-shoot digital camera? Google Maps rendered GPS navigation systems irrelevant, and when I want to feel really old, I tell younger reporters about a time when I used physical (paper) Thomas Guide maps to get from one assignment to another. Apple's iPod and other MP3 players, Cisco's Flip video cameras and even voice recorders have virtually disappeared.
Outside of luxury fashion statements, wristwatches became a novelty until companies like Apple brought back the trend by offering smartwatches. They work by connecting to -- what else? -- your smartphone.
Rise of China
The smartphone revolution was radical enough that it destroyed an older generation of handset stalwarts. Nokia and BlackBerry were the kings of the mobile device -- and now neither of those companies makes phones, having licensed out their names to upstarts eager to make the most of once viable brands. US phone pioneer Motorola is owned by Chinese consumer electronics giant Lenovo.
Microsoft, which dominates PCs with its Windows software, couldn't make Windows Phone work. HTC, the maker of the G1, has virtually disappeared from the scene.
Some of the most interesting phones are coming out of Chinese companies -- like Huawei, with its foldable Mate X.
Juan Garzon / CNET
While Samsung remains the king of the hill for smartphones and Apple remains the most profitable player, much of the action in the smartphone world is now coming out of China. Huawei, embroiled in controversial claims by the US that it's a security risk, is the world's second-largest smartphone maker, and that's without selling any phones in America. TCL, a Chinese company best known for budget televisions, has the rights to make phones using the BlackBerry brand.
Many features, like the addition of multiple cameras, a pop-up camera or the use of slimmer bezels, emerged from companies like Huawei or smaller Chinese players such as Xiaomi, Oppo or OnePlus.
The inevitable backlash
The days when we'd get giddy over each new Android or iPhone release are gone. And though innovation is still on the horizon with the rise of 5G and foldable phones like the Galaxy Fold, enthusiasm has given way to a more critical look at how these tiny slabs of metal and glass have really affected our lives.
That little buzz or chime creates an almost Pavlovian need to check your phone, a phenomenon dubbed FOMO, or fear of missing out. It has critics worried that the generation raised on smartphones will be too glued to their screens to operate in the real world. After all, older generations are already hooked on their phones.
"We all seem more preoccupied with what comes out of those little screens than what is going on around us," said Carolina Milanesi, an analyst at Creative Strategies.
The very companies that serve up these time-sucking gadgets are working on apps and tweaks to their operating systems to minimize the amount of time you need to spend on the devices. Through its Screen Time feature, Apple's iOS 13 lets you control access to apps, and allows parents to manage their kids' activities better too.
In November, Google launched a Digital Wellbeing tool to offer many of the same kinds of controls. Part of Google's presentation at its I/O developer conference in May was focused on being smarter and quicker about addressing your needs.
"Looking ahead, we see another big wave of innovation to make them even more helpful," Cuthbertson said.
We've come a long way from simply making phone calls, playing music and browsing the internet.
Originally published Oct. 21, 5 a.m. PT. Update, 3 p.m. PT: Adds background.
Marvel s vfx artists are suffering and starting to speak out meaning marvel s vfx artists are suffering and glory marvel s vfx artists are driven marvel s vfx artists are here to disturb marvel s vfx artists are furious at webtoon marvel s vfx artists are people marvel s vfx artists react
Marvel's VFX Artists Are Suffering -- and Starting to Speak Out
Marvel's VFX Artists Are Suffering -- and Starting to Speak Out
Thor: Love and Thunder director Taika Waititi makes interviews look fun. During the long and often tedious press tour filmmakers endure to promote their latest films, Waititi brought his trademark laid-back goofiness to a video in which he breaks down a scene. Only, this time, it backfired. Almost offhandedly, Waititi questioned whether a character named Korg, a CGI rock creature he also played, looked "real." "Do I need to be more blue?" he asked.
The comment launched headlines. Waititi, the director, appeared to cruelly mock his own film's VFX work -- work painstakingly toiled over across hundreds of hours by visual effects artists. It got worse. At the same time, severalReddit threads surfaced, charting the harsh experiences of effects artists who worked on Marvel projects as far back as 2012.
Chris Hemsworth and Taika Waititi at the Sydney premiere of Thor: Love And Thunder.
Photo by Lisa Maree Williams/Getty Images
"Working on Marvel projects ends up being incredibly stressful, and this is a widely known issue throughout the VFX industry, it's not specific to any one VFX house," a person who worked on Marvel projects and wished to remain anonymous, told CNET via email. Industry standards dictate a strict policy of not speaking to the press.
Marvel and Disney didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Visual effects artists are in more demand than ever, servicing abundant productions from Marvel, Warner Bros., Sony and more. VFX studios secure work by placing a bid based on the number of shots a studio requests. Competition can be aggressive. While a low bid might win, the actual workload the shots amount to can vary dramatically.
"You bid on a number of shots and hope that on average they don't end up being too complicated or difficult, or that the client gets too caught up in minor details and keeps sending shots back for more work," said Peter Allen, an animator and VFX artist and former lecturer in film and television production at the University of Melbourne.
The work is contracted to a VFX house at a set price. An effects artist might manage grueling hours to meet hard release dates but work overtime unpaid. If the final product fails to satisfy audience expectations, VFX artists often take the blame.
"As a visual medium, visual effects are among the easiest targets for fans to pick apart, especially if there are leaks or early releases of unfinished shots," Allen said. Cats and Sonic the Hedgehog are recent examples.
The upcoming She-Hulk has already drawn criticism for the CGI look of its hero.
Marvel Studios/Screenshot by CNET
With an avalanche of new projects lined up in the next phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe -- a seemingly never-ending stream of content -- effects artists have been coming under intensifying strain. Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk and Thor: Love and Thunder are the latest to weather criticism about underwhelming superpower effects.
But now, the artists vital to Marvel's storytelling are speaking out. Sick of bearing the brunt of visual effects criticism, tired of punishing working conditions, VFX artists are demanding change.
Unless the industry can make fundamental improvements, Marvel could have a problem on its hands.
An infamous client
Even before the public Reddit threads, insider stories and viral tweets, Marvel had a reputation for pushing VFX artists to the brink. Forget 38-hour weeks. One source described working 60 to 80. This lasted "multiple months in a row."
The toll was brutal. "I've had to comfort people crying at their desks late at night from the sheer pressure involved, and routinely had colleagues call me having anxiety attacks," the effects artist said. "I've heard personally from many artists that they ask to avoid Marvel shows in their future assignments."
Another VFX artist, who also wished to remain anonymous, described harsh conditions that extended beyond the Marvel machine.
"I have worked on several projects for Marvel and other tentpole films," the effects artist told CNET. "For many years, I did work long hours, mostly unpaid. No longer. At no time do I work for free, nor will I work an all-nighter for a perceived emergency."
Sequences underwent late changes in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.
Marvel Studios
One effects artists boils Marvel's problems down to three major issues: a demand to see near-complete work much earlier in the process compared to other clients; high-pressure environments leading to burnout and low morale; and lower budgets squeezing out more experienced, more expensive workers from future Marvel projects.
Even after shots are exhaustively delivered, Marvel is allegedly "infamous" for requesting "tons of different variations" until one earns the green light. It doesn't end there. More changes to a production often come late in the game, potentially weeks out from release, resulting in an endemic practice of working overtime. The latest Doctor Strange flick, for example, underwent late changes to sequences involving VFX.
"We've literally made up entire third acts of a film, a month before release, because the director didn't know what they wanted," one source said about Marvel in general. "Even Marvel's parent Disney is much easier to work with on their live-action films."
Could VFX houses push back? Not if they want to risk financial loss. In 2013, Rhythm & Hues, the acclaimed VFX house that worked on The Lord of the Rings and Life of Pi -- which won the Oscar for best visual effects -- filed for bankruptcy. It was the last major independent VFX studio in Los Angeles. Moving Picture Company, an effects house that worked on Spider-Man: No Way Home, reportedly announced in July that it would be freezing pay rises this year.
Marvel, providing a seemingly endless source of work, is a lucrative client. "Marvel has multiple blockbusters in a row, and studios that displease them risk losing out on tons of work," said one effects artist. "So they don't push back as much as they would with other clients."
The size of Marvel allows it to secure bargain effects work, to "string along" a studio or move on to the next best bidder. Yet, for some, working on Marvel projects is no different from any other big action film. It's about managing expectations.
The VFX studio behind Oscar-winning Life of Pi went bankrupt.
Fox 2000 Pictures
Balance
Not all VFX gigs are an overwhelming slog. Not even with Marvel.
"My experience working on the one Marvel film was pretty much the same as any other film," another artist told CNET. They said that, while the workload was high, the deadlines "were the same as any other action film."
Another VFX artist believes the onus is on the effects houses to stand up for their workers, to "pay overtime" and "manage expectations," both with clients and artists.
"The blame is on the VFX studios, not the client -- Marvel or otherwise."
Yet less established VFX houses might lack the influence to shield artists from the "crazy" schedules Marvel could impose. One solution to this power dynamic has already started to unfold.
A decade ago, visual effects artists were part of one of the "largest non-unionized sectors in showbiz," according to a Variety report. Since then, VFX unions such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees have attempted to organize visual effects artists.
"Employees unionizing would dramatically change how VFX houses bid shows because they can't simply dump the poor choices onto their employees," one effects artist said. "It makes sure employees can't be pushed around as easily."
Animation artists, for example, can unionize in their respective workplaces with the help of the Animation Guild. The organization acts as an advocate for its members over wage disputes and more between employees and employers. Major studios such as Dreamworks and Walt Disney Animation Studios -- as well as Marvel Animation -- employ artists covered by the guild.
The time could be right for making unionization happen for effects artists, VFX artist Allen said. "Right now, there's high demand for staff so there is an unusual opportunity for those staff to organize since production companies really need them."
But this solution isn't as easy as snapping one's fingers. Outsourcing, or using ununionized workers, is another way for studios to cut costs. "Many studios will bring in people on work visas with the promise of long-term employment," one effects artist said. The studios then leave the employee "dangling."
Still, signs could be positive for effects artists. Other production workers, including staff in IT and logistics, have been successful in joining the Animation Guild, which "used to be for artists only," Allen says. For VFX professionals, traditionally viewed as craftworkers rather than artists, this could be an "interesting development."
"But individual workplaces have to agree to unionize, it's not an automatic protection for all workers."
Chris Hemsworth as Thor in Thor: Love and Thunder.
Marvel Studios/YouTube
The Marvel effect
One effects artist believes the onus is still on Marvel to enact its own changes. It could come down to greater training for its directors on the VFX process.
"Marvel's directors are often inexperienced with the VFX process, both on set and after," an effects artist said.
If the director happens to prefer longer takes, it can "dramatically" increase the workload on artists, Allen said. Not only are there more frames to create effects for, but the longer the effect is on screen, the more precise they have to be. "Shorter shots mean you can cut a few corners."
The effects artist said Marvel must stop believing "VFX gives [it] infinite room to change things." They said Marvel must work with its directors to reduce the number of iterations in the VFX process. "With training -- with clearer, more 'decisive' visualization provided to directors early in the process -- everyone could be on the same page."
Then, maybe, no one would have their work come under fire during press tours.
