14.2 C
New York
Thursday, October 2, 2025
Home Blog Page 137

A Novel Aerogel Paves the Way for Transparent Wood

0

The thermal efficiency of a building depends on many things: the color of the paint, the orientation, or the type of construction materials, but above all, its insulating qualities. And here, the Achilles heel is often the windows: a house is estimated to lose up to 30% of its thermal energy through them. Even if they use double glazing, energy is inevitably dissipated through the glass. Ultimately, it boils down to choosing between insulation and transparency. By multiplying the layers of glass, you lose transparency; conversely, by reducing the thickness and number of glass sheets, you lose energy. Or at least that was the logic until researchers at the University of Boulder in Colorado decided to develop a transparent wood aerogel capable of insulating with the same efficiency as a wall.

Windows made from beer wort

The latest proposal from the University of Boulder was published in March 2023, but the story of transparent wooden windows goes back to 2018. That was when the U.S. university team published the results of a project in which beer wort had been used to create a transparent, insulating aerogel. The research was part of the qiuest to develop building materials for Mars, where the colonists’ food waste would be used. Thus, the process was based on using bacteria to generate cellulose from brewery waste, but that first attempt un successful.      

Five years later, they have demonstrated the feasibility of a new version of their aerogel that offers a higher transparency index than glass. And yet it is also made from cellulose. To produce the aerogel, the researchers suspended wood nanofibers in water and then replaced the water with ethanol. Next, they applied a heat and pressure treatment that replaced the ethanol with air bubbles. Finally, they added silica compounds that repel water and prevent condensation.

The result is a film that can be applied to existing windows like vinyl to multiply their insulating capacity. However, by using a thicker sheet of aerogel – about 2.5 cm -, it is possible to make a window offer the same level of insulation as a wall. Just think of the impact this transparent wood could have on the construction of skyscrapers, which rely almost entirely on glazed facades today.

 

In addition, the new aerogel could become a more sustainable building material than glass. The latter’s production, which requires high temperatures, generates around 100 million tons of carbon dioxide annually worldwide. All this has led the U.S. Department of Agriculture to describe transparent wood as a “window to the future”, with the potential to outperform glass in almost all areas. 

Transparent wood: a sustainable substitute for plastic?

The production of plastics with fossil fuels and the environmental problems it generates when managing the resulting waste are driving the development of alternatives. For example, research is being carried out into producing biodegradable bioplastics based on natural polymers such as potato starch or cellulose.

Transparent wood could also be part of this trend. According to a study published in Science of The Total Environment, it could become an excellent substitute for plastic. The study’s authors claim that the production of transparent wood has a 24% lower impact on global warming than other petroleum-based materials such as polypropylene or vinyl.

Transparent wood was first produced in 1992 thanks to the work of German scientist Siegfried Fink. The basic principle consists of extracting the lignin from wood – a biopolymer – and replacing it with transparent materials. Over time, the results have been improved, including its level of transparency, strength, and insulating qualities, as well as its ease of manufacture. An example of this is the work of Stockholm University, which used monomers in orange peelings to achieve a transparent and 100% renewable wood.

As can be seen, the windows of the future are likely to be very different from today’s. They may incorporate transparent wood, photovoltaic glass, pollution-trapping coatings, or even offer smart capabilities. If you want to learn more about technologies like these, subscribe to our newsletter at the bottom of the page.

 

Source:

Government intervenes to resolve strike, mandates negotiation between parties

0

Watch: Moment Air Canada ends news conference after union activists disrupt event

The Canadian government has intervened in the Air Canada strike, forcing both parties to the bargaining table as hundreds of flights were suspended this weekend.

Jobs Minister Patty Hajdu ordered binding arbitration between the airline and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (Cupe), which represents more than 10,000 Air Canada flight attendants, hours after a strike began on Saturday morning.

“Despite significant supports from the government, these parties have been unable to resolve their differences in a timely manner,” Hadju said in a statement, adding that “stability and supply chains” must be preserved.

The country’s largest carrier says the strike will affect around 500 flights a day.

Hadju invoked Section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to bring the parties to the table.

In a statement on X, Cupe said Canada’s Liberal Party was “violating our charter rights” and the intervention “sets a terrible precedent”.

The airline said it had suspended all flights, including those under its budget arm Air Canada Rouge, and advised affected customers not to travel to the airport unless with a different airline.

Air Canada said this would disrupt travel plans for around 130,000 passengers a day.

Its flight attendants are calling for higher salaries and to be paid for work when aircraft are on the ground.

The strike took effect at 00:58 EDT (04:58 GMT) on Saturday, though Air Canada began scaling back its operations before then.

Flight attendants will picket at major Canadian airports, where passengers were trying to secure new bookings earlier in the week.

Air Canada, which flies directly to 180 cities worldwide, said it had “suspended all operations” and that it was “strongly advising affected customers not to go to the airport”.

It added that Air Canada Jazz, PAL Airlines and Air Canada Express flights were unaffected.

“Air Canada deeply regrets the effect the strike is having on customers,” it said.

By Friday night, the airline said it had cancelled 623 flights affecting more than 100,000 passengers, as part of a winding down of operations ahead of the strike.

In contract negotiations, the airline said it had offered flight attendants a 38% increase in total compensation over four years, with a 25% raise in the first year.

Cupe said the offer was “below inflation, below market value, below minimum wage” and would still leave flight attendants unpaid for some hours of work, including boarding and waiting at airports ahead of flights.

The union and the airline have publicly traded barbs about each other’s willingness to reach an agreement.

Earlier this month, 99.7% of employees represented by the union voted for a strike.

Cupe has asserted that it had been negotiating in good faith for more than eight months, but that Air Canada instead sought government-directed arbitration.

“When we stood strong together, Air Canada didn’t come to the table in good faith,” the union said in a statement to its members. “Instead, they called on the federal government to step in and take those rights away.”

Netease Cloud Music Reports 15.2% Year-on-Year Growth in Subscription Streaming Revenue in First Half of 2021, Emphasizing Support for Indie Artists and In-House Music

0

Netease Cloud Music, China’s second-largest operator of music streaming services, has reported double-digit growth in streaming and music subscription revenue for the first half of 2025.

However, the company’s overall revenue declined due to a large YoY drop in turnover from its social entertainment services division.

The company saw a 15.9% YoY increase in revenue from music services, to RMB 2.97 billion, or USD $415 million at the average exchange rate for the second quarter.

Within that figure, revenues from membership subscriptions rose 15.2% YoY to RMB 2.47 billion ($346 million) from RMB 2.14 billion in the same period a year earlier.

The company said the growth was driven by an increase in the subscriber base, which was partly offset by lower average revenue per paying user (ARPPU) due to a change in the subscriber mix.

NCM said the number of monthly active users (MAUs) “maintained steady growth momentum,” but did not disclose specific figures.

Among the company’s strategic priorities going forward, NCM said it plans to “cultivat[e] our users’ willingness to pay and subscribe to premium offerings by improving user experience, deepening user engagement, enhancing membership privileges and broadening consumption scenarios.”

NCM noted that during H1 it had expanded its relationships with copyright holders – including deals with South Korean K-pop companies RBW and Starship Entertainment – but also stressed its expansion of in-house music and the importance of the independent artists on its platform.

The company said it now works directly with 819,000 independent artists, who have contributed 4.8 million tracks to the Netease Cloud Music platform.

That’s up from 611,000 independent artists and 2.6 million tracks as of the end of 2022.

The company noted it had recently rolled out new “roles” for the artists on its platform, including “AI Musician” and “Trainee Musician,” which it says will “provide fresh opportunities for budding music creators to grow and contribute to the diversity of our content creation ecosystem.”

NCM has also partnered with various brands in a program that allows indie artists to create theme songs and background music for ads, which “boosts musicians’ visibility and provides them with valuable commercial opportunities.”

The company said its in-house music initiative has also shown results. “Our in-house studios have successfully produced and popularized multiple hit songs across our community and external platforms” since the start of the year, the company said.

“By supporting independent musicians and developing in-house music, we actively promote the growth of original Chinese music.”

NCM also said it’s “cost-effectively” expanding its long-form audio library, including self-produced audiobooks and podcasts.


Revenue drops, operating profit soars

Despite the strength in its music segment, the company reported a 6.0% YoY decline in overall revenue, to RMB 3.8 billion ($525.3 million). This was due to a 43.1% YoY drop in revenues from social entertainment services, to RMB 859.8 million ($118.9 million), from RMB 1.51 billion a year earlier.

Both Netease Cloud Music and its larger competitor, Tencent Music Entertainment, have seen precipitous drops in revenue in their social entertainment divisions driven by a crackdown on online gambling by Chinese authorities.

“By supporting independent musicians and developing in-house music, we actively promote the growth of original Chinese music.”

Netease Cloud Music

In its latest earnings report, NCM suggested it is shifting its focus away from social entertainment towards its “core music business.”

The company’s gross profit declined 2.3% YoY to RMB 1.39 billion ($192.2 million), but its operating profit surged 40.8% YoY to RMB 844.5 million ($116.7 million) while pre-tax profit jumped 31.3% YoY to RMB 1.07 billion ($147.9 million).

NCM attributed the increase in part to a deferred tax credit of RMB 849.8 million that arose from “cumulative tax losses incurred by a wholly-owned subsidiary.”


Source: Netease Cloud Music

The company’s gross margin improved to 34.6%, which it attributed to “increased business scale, strong monetization of our core online music business and ongoing cost optimization.”

Netease Cloud Music stock closed the trading day Thursday (August 14) down 4.8% on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, trading at HKD $270.20 (USD $34.50) per share.Music Business Worldwide

US halts visas for Gaza residents following backlash on right-wing social media | Latest developments in Israel-Palestine conflict

0

State Department move comes as Israel’s war and induced-famine in Gaza reach new extremes, with 61,827 killed so far.

The United States has announced that it is halting all visitor visas for people from Gaza pending a “a full and thorough” review, a day after social media posts about Palestinian refugees sparked furious reactions from right-wingers.

The Department of State’s move on Saturday came a day after far-right activist and Trump ally Laura Loomer posted on X that Palestinians “who claim to be refugees from Gaza” entered the US via San Francisco and Houston this month.

“How is allowing for Islamic immigrants to come into the US America First policy?” she said on X in a later post, going on to report further Palestinian arrivals in Missouri and claiming that “several US Senators and members of Congress” had texted her to express their fury.

Republican lawmakers speaking publicly about the matter included Chip Roy of Texas, who said he would inquire about the matter, and Randy Fine of Florida, who described the alleged arrivals as a “national security risk”.

By Saturday, the State Department announced it was stopping visas for “individuals from Gaza” while it conducted “a full and thorough review of the process and procedures used to issue a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas in recent days”. It did not provide a figure.

The US issued 640 visas to holders of the Palestinian Authority travel document in May, according to the Reuters news agency. B1/B2 visitor visas permit Palestinians to seek medical treatment in the US.

Loomer greeted Saturday’s State Department announcement with glee.

“It’s amazing how fast we can get results from the Trump administration,” she said on Saturday, though she later posted that more needed to be done to “highlight the crisis of the invasion happening in our country”.

The decision to cut visas comes as Israel intensifies its attacks on Gaza, where at least 61,827 people have been killed in the past 22 months, with the United Nations warning that “widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease” are driving a rise in famine-related deaths.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pushing to seize Gaza City as part of a takeover of the Strip, forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to concentration zones.

Challenging the Client

0



Client Challenge



JavaScript is disabled in your browser.

Please enable JavaScript to proceed.

A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser
extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your
connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.

Kyiv likely disappointed by Trump’s shift in ceasefire strategy

0

Paul Adams

BBC Diplomatic Correspondent

Getty Images US President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky sitting side by side during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on February 28Getty Images

Zelensky and Trump will meet on Monday

No deal in Alaska. It was always the most likely and, in the absence of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, perhaps the most desirable outcome.

But US President Donald Trump’s pivot away from the need for an immediate ceasefire, which he said beforehand he wanted, will have caused profound dismay in Kyiv and around Europe.

Russia’s position has long been that a ceasefire can only come in the context of a comprehensive settlement taking account of Russia’s interests – and inevitably implies Ukraine’s capitulation.

That’s the position that Trump, once again, appears to have endorsed.

“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine,” he wrote on Truth Social, “is to go directly to a peace agreement.”

Ceasefires, he noted, “often times do not hold up”.

This appears to fly in the face of Ukraine’s main demand, endorsed by all its European backers: that an unconditional ceasefire has to come first.

Crucially, it also buys Russia’s Vladimir Putin time on the battlefield, where he is convinced he’s winning.

“If Putin’s military objective was to avoid immediate constraints on Russian operations in Ukraine then he appears to have succeeded,” says Matthew Savill, the director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute.

At their brief press appearance last night, Putin warned Ukraine and the Europeans not to “throw a wrench” in the works of the unspecified progress he and Trump had made.

But that, for Kyiv and its allies, is precisely what Trump has done, undoing the achievements of what they all hoped was a successful preceding week of frantic diplomacy aimed at influencing the outcome in Alaska.

It’s a reminder, as if one were needed, of Trump’s tendency to echo the views of the last person to have his ear.

For a short while this morning, European leaders will have held their breath, waiting to see if their efforts had borne fruit or been cast aside.

True to his word before the summit, Trump got on the phone to Zelensky. The two men spoke for an hour, before being joined by European leaders.

Zelensky said the call was “long and substantive” and that he would travel to Washington on Monday for his first visit since the disastrous Oval Office encounter in February.

A lot has happened since then, with Kyiv’s European allies working assiduously to repair the damage and school Zelensky in the best ways of handling the capricious and volatile occupant of the White House.

“I am grateful for the invitation,” Zelensky posted, adding “it is important that America’s strength has an impact on the situation”.

But in a later post, after Trump’s statement on Truth Social, Zelensky adopted a more urgent tone.

“Killings must stop as soon as possible,” he said. “The fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the sky, as well as against our port infrastructure.”

Reuters US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin shake hands during a press conference following their meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, in Anchorage, AlaskaReuters

On his way to Alaska, Trump said he wouldn’t be happy if he left without a ceasefire, but afterwards posted on social media that ceasefires “often times do not hold up”

Europe’s “Trump whisperers” picked up this morning where they left off last week.

They highlighted the vital importance of involving Ukraine in conversations about its future but also paused, as they know they must regularly do, to show appreciation for Trump’s efforts.

“President Trump’s efforts have brought us closer than ever before to ending Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine,” said Sir Keir Starmer, the UK’s prime minister.

Starmer said he welcomed what he called the “openness” of the US, along with Europe, to provide “robust security guarantees” for Ukraine in the event of a deal.

If and when the fighting does eventually end, the precise nature of those guarantees will need to be spelled out in a great deal more detail than has so far been the case.

Getty Images Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz face a screen during a video conference of European leaders with the US President on the Ukraine war ahead of the summit between the US and Russian leadersGetty Images

European leaders held a virtual meeting with Trump on Wednesday ahead of the US president’s meeting with Putin

Despite Europe’s emerging role as Ukraine’s principal military, economic and political backer, everyone knows Ukraine’s future security cannot really be assured without the substantive backing of the US.

In her own comments on the Alaska summit, Italy’s leader, Giorgia Meloni, said guarantees for Ukraine could be “inspired by Nato’s Article 5” – the principle of collective defence signed on to by all Nato members.

Several reports this morning suggested the idea of guarantees outside Nato but equivalent to Article 5 were discussed during the latest call between Trump and European leaders.

But in the wake of Trump’s apparent about-face this morning, you can almost hear the sound of minds spinning across European capitals.

In London, the government appears to be putting on a brave face.

“If you can get that all done [a ceasefire and a peace agreement] in one go or in quick succession that’s obviously a good thing,” said a senior Downing Street source.

“But we all want to see the fighting stop”.

Getty Images US President Donald Trump waving as he boards Air Force One to depart Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Getty Images

Trump has walked away from the idea of an immediate ceasefire, no doubt informed by Putin’s highly contentious account of how ceasefires broke down in the past.

The quasi-summit in Alaska already represented a cost-free win for Putin. The return of an international pariah to the international stage (albeit one festooned with unambiguous displays of American military might at the Elmendorf-Richardson airbase) and some of the trappings of a state visit.

The threat of increased US sanctions on Moscow receded too, with Trump saying it may be two or three weeks before he even has to think about it.

All this raises a host of questions about what may greet Zelensky, both on Monday in Washington and when he finally finds himself in the room with Putin and Trump.

What advice does Trump have for the Ukrainian leader, Fox’s Sean Hannity asked.

“Make a deal,” came the blunt reply. “Russia’s a very big power and they’re not.”

Zelenskiy prepares for risky negotiations with Trump in Washington next Monday

0

Zelenskiy braces for perilous Trump talks in Washington on Monday

Arab and Islamic nations denounce Netanyahu’s comments on ‘Greater Israel’ | Updates on Israel-Palestine tensions

0

A statement issued by the countries says the Israeli prime minister’s comments constitutes a direct threat to Arab national security and peace.

A coalition of Arab and Muslim nations has condemned “in the strongest terms” statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding his vision for a “Greater Israel”.

When interviewer Sharon Gal with the Israeli i24NEWS channel asked Netanyahu if he subscribed to a “vision” for a “Greater Israel”, Netanyahu said “absolutely”. Asked during the interview aired on Tuesday if he felt connected to the “Greater Israel” vision, Netanyahu said: “Very much.”

The “Greater Israel” concept supported by ultranationalist Israelis is understood to refer to an expansionist vision that lays claim to the occupied West Bank, Gaza, parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan.

“These statements represent a grave disregard for, and a blatant and dangerous violation of, the rules of international law and the foundations of stable international relations,” said a joint statement by a coalition of 31 Arab and Islamic countries and the Arab League.

“They also constitute a direct threat to Arab national security, to the sovereignty of states, and to regional and international peace and security,” the statement released on Friday said.

The signatories of the statement included the secretaries-general of the League of Arab States, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

The Arab and Islamic nations also condemned Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s announcement on Thursday to push ahead with settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.

The statement said the move is “a blatant violation of international law and a flagrant assault on the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to realise their independent, sovereign state on the lines of June 4, 1967, with Occupied Jerusalem as its capital”.

The statement added that Israel has no sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territory.

Smotrich said he would approve thousands of housing units in a long-delayed illegal settlement project in the West Bank, saying the move “buries the idea of a Palestinian state”.

Last September, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling on Israel to end its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories within 12 months.

The resolution backed an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – the UN’s top court – which found that Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories is unlawful and must end. In January 2024, the ICJ said Israel was “plausibly committing genocide”. The top UN court has yet to announce its verdict in the case brought by South Africa.

Netanyahu and Smotrich made the remarks during Israel’s devastating 22-month war on Gaza, which has killed at least 61,827 people and wounded 155,275 people in the enclave.

Last week, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved Netanyahu’s plan to fully occupy Gaza City, and in Tuesday’s interview, Netanyahu also revived calls to “allow” Palestinians to leave Gaza, telling i24NEWS: “We are not pushing them out, but we are allowing them to leave.”

Campaigners said Netanyahu’s use of the word “leave” was a euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza – home to 2.1 million people, most of whom are refugees and their descendants from the 1948 Nakba when more than 700,000 Palestinians were forced to flee from what became the state of Israel.

Past calls to resettle people from Gaza outside the war-battered territory, including from United States President Donald Trump, have sparked fears of forced displacement among Palestinians and condemnation from the international community.

In their statement on Saturday, the Islamic countries reiterated their “rejection and condemnation of Israel’s crimes of aggression, genocide, and ethnic cleansing” in Gaza and highlighted the need for a ceasefire in the enclave while “ensuring unconditional access to humanitarian aid to halt the systematic starvation policy used by Israel as a weapon of genocide”.

They also reaffirmed their “complete and absolute rejection of the displacement of the Palestinian people in any form and under any pretext” and called on the international community to pressure Israel to halt its aggression and fully withdraw from the Gaza Strip.

Rural America Misses Out on Billion-Dollar Remote Work Opportunity

0

The U.S. has spent billions to bring broadband to rural communities—but many of the people it’s meant to help still aren’t logging on.

Unless governments focus on adoption—not just access—they risk funding infrastructure that goes unused, while rural Americans remain cut off from healthcare, education, and the growing remote job market that today represents nearly a quarter of the U.S. workforce.

Most public discussion around rural broadband has centered on availability. Federal and state programs have rightly prioritized reaching remote areas, building towers, and upgrading last-mile delivery. But access doesn’t guarantee uptake. Across rural America, broadband networks are expanding—yet adoption remains stubbornly low in many regions.

As recently as 2021, nearly one in five rural households did not subscribe to a broadband service. Among those, nearly 25% said they simply weren’t interested. This wasn’t about affordability or technical skill—it was a matter of relevance.

By 2023, broadband adoption had surpassed 80% among younger rural adults, but dropped sharply with age. Just 68% of rural adults over 75 had broadband. Among those aged 65–74, adoption hovered around 71%, compared to over 80% for adults under 50.

This divide is as generational as it is geographic. Most younger residents are already online. What remains are older Americans who haven’t found a reason to change long-standing habits.

Even in communities where broadband is already available, uptake lags for reasons that go beyond infrastructure or cost. Without demand, access doesn’t translate into impact.

These usage patterns reflect long-established habits. A study of broadband deployment in rural Missouri found that most early adopters used their new connection primarily for entertainment. Only half engaged with applications like telehealth or remote work. Even after access is delivered, usage often stays stuck in the past.

The cost of disconnection

The economic implications are real. Counties with high broadband adoption see stronger job growth, higher self-employment, and greater income gains. Nationally, about 22% of the workforce—roughly 32 million Americans—now works remotely at least part of the time, compared to just 6% before the pandemic. While the Covid-era boom in remote or hybrid work has cooled, the share of remote-capable jobs remains an enduring opportunity for rural communities positioned to take advantage of it. But while three-quarters of mid-career rural workers say they’re willing to train for those jobs, most say they haven’t taken any courses to do so — often because they lack the broadband access to even start.

We’ve seen this before. In the mid-20th century, rural electrification and telephone service faced similar hurdles. Infrastructure wasn’t enough. Outreach, financing, and cultural adaptation were required — especially to reach older residents. It took years of effort to shift behavior and build trust.

There are modern parallels. The Affordable Connectivity Program helped low-income households get online—but it didn’t close the gap. Those who benefited most were already inclined to value broadband. The people who remained offline tended to be older, more isolated, and less convinced of its relevance.

Rural clinics have seen this firsthand. Many invested in telehealth platforms—only to find older patients still preferred phone calls. Even basic digital engagement, like using patient portals, lags in many areas. In Ohio and West Virginia, providers report low digital adoption among seniors despite widespread broadband availability.

Local employers face similar challenges. Remote roles go unfilled because applicants lack digital confidence. Older caregivers often struggle to support kids’ online homework. In parts of Appalachia, internet access exists, but without digital literacy, it remains underused. These are behavioral problems. They have nothing to do with infrastructure.

The real last mile

Solving the broadband adoption gap must begin at the local level. National subsidies help build networks, but the harder work happens in places where trust already exists and outreach can take hold — in neighborhoods, schools, libraries and clinics. These places and resources serve as anchors in many rural communities and are well positioned to explain how broadband supports everyday needs. 

Some states have created digital navigator programs that train local leaders to help residents use the internet with confidence. And here’s an idea that’s as simple as it gets: why not offer a year of free service to help people figure out how broadband fits into their daily lives? If relevance is the hurdle, trial access may be the bridge. Both strategies focus on showing value through use, not just access.

But without local engagement, the gap is likely to grow. Young people may leave in search of digital opportunity. Older adults may become more isolated. The economic benefits of broadband depend on broad participation. If large portions of a community remain offline, the return on investment will fall short.The federal government has laid the physical foundation. The next phase requires a social strategy—one that supports education, outreach, and trial access. Residents need more than the option to connect. They need a reason to log on, whether it’s talking to a doctor from home, helping their child with homework, or landing a remote job that pays a city salary from the kitchen table.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Introducing the 2025 Fortune Global 500, the definitive ranking of the biggest companies in the world. Explore this year’s list.

The Untold Story of Michael Phelps: Revealing the Letter USA Swimming Kept Hidden

0

By Gold Medal Mel Stewart on SwimSwam

This is an editorial. These opinions are my own, not on behalf of SwimSwam, its staff, or its partners. I write as someone who swam year-round from 1972 to 1996, won Olympic gold medals, and lived the national team experience for nearly 12 years.

Michael Phelps released a statement earlier this week giving context around his recent social post and remarks during the 2025 World Championships. Read his statement here.

In my opinion, Michael was far, far too nice, controlled even. I know because I was in those early conversations he led. And the truth is, those talks began in April. By late May, Michael had his letter ready to go.

The Facts

  • Over 120 Olympic gold medals were represented among the Olympians who signed Michael’s letter.
  • Top U.S. swim clubs in the nation signed.
  • Four U.S. Olympic swimming coaches spanning Games from 1976 to 2024 signed.
  • USA Swimming donors signed.

Michael tried to engage USA Swimming earlier this year and was brushed off. That’s when he put pen to paper drafting a letter that called for a systemic leadership reset at USA Swimming.

Michael was ready to go public as early as June 2nd. He delayed because he didn’t want to distract athletes at U.S. Trials. But once the letter’s existence became known to the Board, the tone changed. Suddenly, they engaged with him because the greatest Olympian of all time had put them on notice. That letter was hanging over their heads.

What Michael Didn’t Share

Behind the scenes, Michael faced relentless, overwhelming pressure not to release his letter.

To be 100% clear so everyone understands this, Michael’s letter was not nor has it ever been about the swimmers or any single meet. It was 100% about leadership—specifically, the USA Swimming Board of Directors.

The USA Swimming Statement

Think about this: The interim CEO’s recent statement leaned heavily into a narrative of illness at World Champs and praise for National Team Director Greg Meehan, but it completely ignored the elephant in the room.

All summer long, the Board knew the greatest Olympian of all-time was leading a coalition (Olympians, clubs, coaches, and donors) calling for seismic change, a complete overhaul.

And yet USA Swimming told the public it was all about sick swimmers.

My Opinion

That’s not just spin. That’s a massive misdirect.

This felt like a clear attempt to pit the sport’s biggest icon, Michael Phelps, against its most visible asset, the U.S. National Team.

From my perspective, if I were Michael, reading that statement, I would think they were saying this between the lines:

We’re making it about the ill swimmers, Michael, and not about your letter that we’ve known about all summer. In other words, we’re willing to throw you under the bus, rather than take any accountability for our failings.

And to me, that is infuriating.

Why Was A Coalition Calling For Leadership Change?

We are nearly a year into a CEO search, and this Board’s first pick back in February got a Safe Sport claim.

I called a fellow Olympian. No hello. They just roared into the phone: “What the actual f#&@, Mel? Am I reading this right? What is going on in Colorado Springs?!”

The Board did not disclose the Safe Sport claim until Braden Keith, SwimSwam’s co-founder and editor-in-chief, pressed them. Braden didn’t ambush them. He gave them a chance to clarify. Only then did they issue a statement.

It is my opinion that they, the USA Swimming Board of Directors, had no intention of telling the membership. My opinion is supported by the fact that the original explanation was at best a half-truth, not even a silence, but an intentional distraction. I believe they, the Board, would have been content for the CEO to quietly withdraw, Safe Sport claim unseen. That belief comes from 40 years in the sport, 33 years dealing with the Board, 13 years running the most-read swim media site in the world, and over a decade as a national team member.

No one on the board of directors resigned after that debacle. No one took responsibility. And, yes, it was a debacle.

A Pattern of Avoidance

Scandal has plagued the Olympic ecosystem: USA Gymnastics went bankrupt before rebooting, USA Swimming weathered years of lawsuits, and yet this Board made their first CEO hire without apparently doing any real due diligence.

Here’s what I know and why that is my opinion: When Braden’s staff looked into it, they got the backstory in one hour and eleven minutes.

Michael Phelps and Rowdy Gaines had every reason to question Board leadership. The CEO fiasco was just one of many grievances.

The Culture Problem

Olympians mortgage their childhood for Olympic glory. The sacrifice is worth it, but you need to know that behind the scenes USA Swimming can be embarrassingly clumsy, lacking in professionalism, and at times, they work against the very athletes they serve.

Of all Olympians, it is my opinion that Michael Phelps has suffered, been frustrated by and disappointed by this culture in an extraordinarily unique way.  He was a star before he got his driver’s license, and a one-man messaging machine that never went off-script from the age of 15 in 2000 at the Sydney Olympics, through the age of 31 at the 2016 Rio Olympics. His message never wavered,  “I want to grow the sport.”

Consider this public comment by Michael Phelps about USA Swimming:

“They treated me like a piece of meat.” 

And his most recent statement on Instagram:

“I spent most of my life inside of a system that is supposed to support athletes. I gave it my everything, but I often felt that my voice went unheard. I was told to be grateful for the chance to compete and that it was more important to stay quiet and to keep the peace.”

Want to know how much daylight there is between those two statements? My better judgement tells me it could be a sprawling memoir, a multiple million dollar book deal,  unpacking an enormous amount of detail he has swallowed up and stuffed deep down inside…and, yes, he just smiled and waved through it all, “Just happy to be a part of Team USA Swimming,” like we expect all of our Olympians to do.

Money Talks – Consider The Athlete Partnership Agreement (APA)

USA Swimming’s C-suite is well-paid. Their public 990s prove it. Yet when SwimSwam attempted to request comment and context on publicly posted financials—which are on USA Swimming’s website because they are required by law to publish them — USA Swimming fought SwimSwam for nine weeks. Their eventual excuse for not responding to the request? That SwimSwam was planning a “hatchet job.”

For the record, SwimSwam published over 12,000 reports that year. Less than five covered USA Swimming financials, and the reports were very AP style direct. Just the facts.

It is my opinion that USA Swimming does NOT want the membership base to know or to be educated about the financials.

Here’s one big reason why:

Compare C-suite salaries since 2010 to the Athlete Partnership Agreement (APA) stipends for national team members. APA support has been flat for 15 years, while executive pay has climbed. The takeaway: do NOT kid yourself. This is about them, the C-suite—not about you. They, the C-suite, are the top priority. And, if you’re keeping score, it is far more lucrative to be an executive at USA Swimming than to chase Olympic medals for the majority of National Team members.

USA Swimming can distribute all of the glowing press releases and statements they want about how much they love the swimmers, how proud they are of the swimmers. It’s BS. If you don’t believe me. Follow the money.

*NOTE:  I contacted national team peers regarding this one topic for background and context. They shared my opinion about APA, but did not want their names revealed.  It is my opinion they fear being ostracised by their governing body. So you understand this, being on the national team is very much like being in a family, a wonderful family of achievement and honours and glory, a family you want to remain connected to and lean on, during your career and in retirement…so long as you keep the family secrets and don’t make waves. Going back to 1980, and up until today, some version of that fear has remained intact. 

Coaches and Fear

Until this summer, USA Swimming had never paid national team coaches for time away at Pan Pacs, Worlds, or the Olympics. Why? Because coaches feared that asking for compensation would get them sidelined.

Think about that: the very people who develop our athletes at home worried about retaliation from their own governing body.

Imagine this: You’re a swimming coach. You have invested years of your life to gain mastery, and then teach and guide young swimmers. You gain this skill and talent that molds young people with resilience strong enough to be first or second in the most powerful Olympic nation on earth. You do this, you achieve this, and then you fear advocating for your basic needs, basic costs (sometimes quite high) for 3, 4 or even 7 weeks away from your club team, your swimmers, your family.

*I asked USA Swimming about this, about what they are paying national team coaches. USA Swimming would not provide that information. While I am extremely thankful national team coaches are finally being paid (after 45 years), I am concerned that their payment does not match their sacrifice in time and skill. My better judgement tells me they are being underpaid.

Club Coaches – The Backbone of USA Swimming

If you are uninformed, watch this podcast with Chris Davis, CEO and Founder of SwimAtlanta. Chris has fostered and developed SwimAtlanta since 1977, building it into the third largest club team in the United States.

The USA Swimming Board of Directors will make excuses and push back about Chris’ opinions regarding governance. It’s all BS. Again, Chris has been at this since 1977, producing Olympians and national champions and helping countless young swimmers reach the very achievable goal of swimming in college.

Chris, a direct quote: “I would pay USA Swimming to leave me alone.”

Chris has a lot to share about USA Swimming, and at the same time, he desperately wants the governing body to be successful.  Let that sink in. After 47 years in the sport, he’s sober about USA Swimming’s lack of support, but he still hopes.  That’s sad. I’m sad, and I’m sad for him, for me, for anyone who cares about the state of the sport.

I shared Chris’ quote because it is so stark, but if you do not like Chris or share his opinion from his 47 years of coaching, I promise that you will get some version of a similar response from countless other club teams, club owners, and coaches. They might not be as dismissive or as harsh about USA Swimming as Chris Davis, but their opinions of the governing body will be pointed and hyper-critical.

The Colorado Springs Bubble

Heard of this? Most national team members and veteran coaches just say The Bubble. You typically have to log years in the sport to come to an understanding of what this means.

For me, someone running a business, I see it in dollars and cents.

The Olympic ecosystem is a giant warchest of cash, and business is better than it has ever been in history.

– $18 billion in rights fees and sponsorships

– $1 billion in reserve

That money flows down from the IOC and is doled out like Olympic welfare (and you should think of it as Olympic welfare) to the USOPC and then to each sport, like USA Swimming.

USA Swimming triumphantly distributed a press release earlier this year about how they earned $50 million and change over 2024, the Paris Olympic year, the most, in fact, in USA Swimming history,

Most read that and think leadership is kicking-butt and taking names! A closer look will reveal that USA Swimming sponsorships were down and registration was flat in 2024. USA Swimming gross revenue was up due to higher fees and Olympic welfare trickle. In sum, USA Swimming collected their welfare and called it a win, while losing sponsors and not growing the sport in an Olympic year..

Consider that. If you are in USA Swimming leadership, you don’t really need to do anything, take chances, strive to grow, strive to be creative or solve problems. Why would you? The gravy train, that massive Olympic welfare, is there, and you can count on it. (Heck, you can even throw Michael Phelps under the bus. Who cares about his 28 medals. He’s retired.)

The Bubble is warm and rewarding, but it has bred complacency, which is why club teams, national team members, Olympic alums, and informed shareholders are so angry.

We have taken the massive lead Michael Phelps gave us, and we’re squandering it.

Anger spikes in non-Olympic years, especially when we see the same problems persist, registration shrink, and core financials flag. Anger simmers due to the fact that we know how large the sport could be, how pervasive our sport is as a recreational lifestyle, and how necessary swimming is to the masses as a life-saving skill. Swimming touches a lot of lives. We know our potential is great, that the business of swimming should be far more robust.

Change is long overdue, but it’s challenging to create change when The Bubble keeps growing and hiding how poorly USA Swimming’s performing.

How Out of Touch Is The Board?

I love this game. It’s not fair, but it’s fun. SwimSwam has owned a data company since 2015, and Braden Keith, our co-founder, is basically Swimming-AI in human form. I’ve been in the sport for four decades. I know the history, I know the numbers, and I know the people.

And I should add: I like most of the board members. I consider many of them friends. But here’s an example of just how detached they can be.

I called a board member back in early December 2023, and said, “Hey buddy, your roof’s on fire. What are you doing about it?”

Confused and a little annoyed, he said, “Roof on fire? Come on, Mel, just tell me.”

I explained that I’d been tracking the SWIMS 3.0 development for over a year. I’d spoken with top swimming alums in tech (real experts with serious CVs). Their verdict? SWIMS 3.0 was going to be a disaster. One even told me, “Grab your popcorn, Mel. This is USA Swimming. It’s going to be a sh#%-show. Like a 12-year-old thinking they can make the Olympics.”

They were right. The rollout wasn’t stress-tested. It was abrupt, messy, and created a wave of grievances from coaches and clubs. By early December, coaches were furious, and I predicted registration would drop at least 4% heading into an Olympic year.

Then I added the kicker, telling the board member: “And my bet is you’ll still bonus the CEO $250K or more on top of his $650K base.”

He, the board member, brushed me off.

The reality? Registration was down 4.6%, and the board did bonus the CEO just under $250K, roughly about $234–236K (from my memory) on top of his base.

I wish I could say this was an outlier moment. It’s not. It’s one of many examples that show a pattern: avoidance, misdirection, and zero urgency when real issues hit.

We should all want a board that’s engaged, proactive, and visionary, leaders who dream big and chart a course the whole sport can rally around. Instead, we have a board that reacts too slowly, dodges the hard stuff, and has historically been spineless on vision. The board talent has been there, truly impressive individuals striving to serve the sport. The vision has not.

What Does The Future Hold? Predictions!

The Board will hire a CEO from outside swimming culture. The announcement will come soon. They’ll release a polished opening letter about how “honored” they are to lead our great tradition. They’ll go on a listening tour (aka, wasted time because they’re green and will be flying blind). And sometime before Pan Pacs in 2026, USA Swimming will roll out a branding tweak or some shiny new messaging about how we should feel about ourselves.

By November 2027, SwimSwam will report the financials. The coaches, the member base, and shareholders in the industry will read how much we’ve paid this person. They’ll look around, realize nothing’s changed, and they will be angry.

Remember The Bubble? It’s warm and safe. Inside that bubble, we have a culture of overpaying chief executives, and it’s corrosive.

Here’s why it is corrosive. The new CEO will walk in with an $800K–$850K base, padded to $900K–$1M+ with fluffy KPIs, and spend their tenure protecting that paycheck. That will be their top priority, to protect their position, not grow the sport. Their real job will be keeping the Board happy, making them close friends, dodging risk, and making sure the boat never rocks. It will shape every aspect of their leadership, meaning they will hire C-suite executives who are loyal to them. They will hedge on support of athletes, coaches, and clubs because it will all factor in and impact their personal bottom-line….money.

I’m sorry to say this, but it’s human nature.

If that doesn’t make you mad, consider this: this CEO will be an outsider, paid roughly $1M per year to learn on the job. Swimming is complicated and an extremely unique culture.  Our last CEO swam through college and coached for a few years, but left the sport for nearly three decades. Our last CEO, being fair to him, was savvy, and even with that background, he was still figuring things out seven years into the role.

We have less than three years until LA2028. We can’t afford another on-the-job training cycle.

The Bubble is real. And if we keep inflating it, the sport we love will stay stuck exactly where it is.

Where Do We Go From Here?

If you’ve read this far, you’re probably exhausted. Me too. I know you’re tired of complaints and want real answers.

My goal here wasn’t to dump on USA Swimming for sport. It was to give you a glimpse of the history, patterns, and missteps that have now spilled into public view via voices like Michael Phelps and Rowdy Gaines.

Here’s my promise: if I’m wrong or inaccurate, I’ll update the record. I’ll provide context. I’ll even apologize if I’ve been shortsighted or lacked data. And I’ll recommit to chasing the truth, explaining exactly how, why, and when that will be done.

In my opinion, USA Swimming will not do that. (I’m pretty sure they’ll attempt another misdirection.) And that is the tragedy. You cannot improve, evolve, or grow stronger without first confronting your weaknesses head-on. If you’re not brutally honest about your history and failures, you’re not just stumbling forward, you’re locking yourself into the same cycle of mistakes, dooming the future before it starts.

Solutions? A path forward? We can and have gotten granular on this topic. I will detail that in another post, but as a teaser, I would begin by addressing the problem of incentivizing a leader, a CEO to actually make swimming their top priority and not their paycheck.

What if:

C-suite salaries (CEO, COO, National Team Director) are capped at $360,000/year, with equally shared bonuses tied to three KPIs:

  1. Membership growth
  2. New revenue generation
  3. National team performance

If leadership gets a raise, Athlete Partnership Agreement stipends (aka National Team members) and national team coach compensation get the same percentage increase. No exceptions. No compensation committee needed. The math is simple enough for the membership to understand.

We’re building a team. Everyone is invested and everyone enjoys the success.

Remember, our aim is to push C-suite performance. Don’t feel sorry for the top three executives. 360k base in Colorado Spring meets their needs, and bonuses are not challenging to land. Any CEO worth their salt should walk revenue through the door on day one.

It is my belief that transformational change is possible, but only when we get brutally honest about The Bubble and the culture of complacency it breeds.

The frustration you’ve heard throughout this piece can be distilled to one simple truth: national team members, veteran coaches, and club owners are diehards. We’re all-in. We live this sport, breathe it, and fight for it every single day. All we’re asking (especially in a domestic Olympic run-up where the potential for success is sky-high) is for our leadership to match that commitment. Even half of it. Just give us a fraction!

That’s not too much to ask. And it’s long past time to deliver.

Read the full story on SwimSwam: Michael Phelps’ Letter And The Story USA Swimming Didn’t Tell You