gshc2020.com

TikTok is summoning its workers back to their desks full time.

TikTok said that, starting in September, it will require most US employees to return to the office five days a week, three staffers told Business Insider.

The in-office mandate will shake up schedules for some hybrid workers who are currently allowed to work from home at least one day a week. Other teams already have five-day RTO. For example, members of TikTok's e-commerce division, TikTok Shop, have been coming in every day for more than a year.

The company's US RTO plans have been in the works for months. In December, TikTok told employees across teams like product, marketing, and ad sales that they should prepare for a full office return in 2026.

TikTok joins a growing list of tech and media companies that have decided they want workers to badge into the office rather than dial in from the comfort of their couches.

TikTok rivals Instagram and Amazon both require many staffers to be in the office five days a week. Other companies like YouTube and Patreon are sticking to hybrid schedules and asking staff to come in three days a week.

Not all tech executives have leaned into RTO. Spotify has stuck to a flexible work schedule, and Dropbox's new co-CEO Ashraf Alkarmi told Business Insider he plans to keep the company "virtual-first" because "flexibility and autonomy are the ultimate currency in modern work."

TikTok operates offices across about a dozen US cities, including New York, Austin, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The company employs thousands of workers in the US and operates in the country partly through a joint venture that includes its parent, ByteDance, and a mix of investors like Oracle, the private equity firm Silver Lake, and the investment company MGX. Some functions like US e-commerce and marketing are overseen by TikTok's global team within ByteDance, while other divisions focused on data protection or content moderation are separate in the US under the joint venture.

TikTok did not respond to a request for comment.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at @danwhateley.94. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

Read next

Dan Whateley

You're currently following this author! Want to unfollow? Unsubscribe via the link in your email.

• TikTok
• Exclusive

For the most part, these changes from Condal and Hess have been for the best. Making Alicent and Rhaenyra around the same age, for example, has proven to be a far more interesting move than going down the evil crone stepmother versus young stepdaughter route. However, the latest changes in the House of the Dragon season 3 finale have us questioning just how far the show's planned fourth and final season may deviate from the original ending for a certain character in Fire & Blood.

Warning: This article contains spoilers for House of the Dragon’s season 3 finale and the ending of The Dance of Dragons segment in Fire & Blood.

After three seasons of trying to prove herself capable of ruling, both to the people of Westeros and to her own allies, Rhaenyra Targaryen (Emma D’Arcy) has officially hit the point of no return. The two people who have the power to keep her moral conscience in line, Alicent Hightower (Olivia Cooke) and Mysaria (Sonoya Mizuno), have both been sent away. This leaves Rhaenyra with only Daemon Targaryen (Matt Smith), who, while certainly the Black Queen’s biggest supporter, has godlike ambitions and cares little for anyone and anything outside of Targaryen exceptionalism.

It’s no wonder then that after losing her sons, and with the ongoing panic at the realization that her biggest threat, Aegon Targaryen (Tom Glynn-Carney) and his dragon Sunfyre are still alive, Rhaenyra isn't afraid to sacrifice anyone and everything to ensure her future as ruler of Westeros. This is especially felt in her treatment of her half-sister, Helaena Targaryen, whom she force-fed gruel and then, quite literally, shut the window on, after uncovering her sister’s death at the end of the episode.

Image: HBO/Ollie Upton

However, a major change in season 3’s finale suggests things are only going to get worse for Rhaenyra. In Fire & Blood, Rhaenyra’s short reign of King’s Landing is so horrific in the eyes of the smallfolk that she is given the rather crude nickname of “Maegor with Teats” — referring to a previous mad Targaryen ruler, Maegor the Cruel. She also becomes known as “Rhaenyra the Cruel.” While these nicknames do originally stem from the heavy taxation the Master of Coin puts on the smallfolk of King’s Landing to help with the war effort, the name sticks to Rhaenyra after the people learn about Helaena’s suicide and immediately assume Rhaenyra had something to do with it, as well as her increasing paranoia and distrust of those close to her. This eventually leads to Rhaenyra having so few allies that it’s easy for Aegon to capture her and her forces on Dragonstone.

The paranoia, however, is understandable in the book. In Fire & Blood, Rhaenyra loses the Battle of Tumbleton when her dragonriders, Ulf the White (Tom Bennett) and Hugh Hammer (Kieran Bew), betray her army and supporters, bathing them in dragonfire. Any betrayal is terrible, but two of her best dragons? It’s a blow that leaves Rhaenyra distrusting the rest of her allies — namely Addam Velaryon (Clinton Liberty), who, like Ulf and Hugh, is a bastard. This distrust prompts Rhaenyra to call for Addam’s arrest, but he escapes with help from his father, Corlys (Steve Toussaint). Enraged, Rhaenyra imprisons Corlys — losing yet another dragon and her Hand in one fell swoop. With three dragons down and Daemon nowhere to be found after he learns Rhaenyra planned to kill his ward/lover, Nettles (in the show, her storyline has been merged with Rhaena Targaryen), Rhaenyra is in a terrible position.

Image: Ollie Upton / HBO

In Condal and Hess’s adaptation, however, things are going a little differently. For one thing, only Ulf betrays Rhaenyra and the Black Council, not Hugh. Also, Rhaenyra and Daemon’s relationship is fairly stable, and he leads the battle at Tumbleton. Furthermore, during the battle, Daemon sees Hugh searching for his wife, Kat, and knows that Hugh wasn’t actively attacking his own men, unlike Ulf. With that in mind, Rhaenyra in the show hasn’t lost all her dragonriders and dragons — only Ulf and Silverwing.

Even with Aegon and Sunfyre confirmed to still be alive, Vhagar — the biggest and strongest of the Green Council’s dragons — is still missing, and Rhaenyra still has a fair number of dragons to her name. Rhaenyra’s power remains fairly resolute, which makes us curious how her descent into paranoia will play out on screen in a way that makes as much sense as it does in Fire & Blood.

It can be argued, however, that Rhaenyra’s paranoia will still play a key part in season 4 of House of the Dragon. What Fire & Blood doesn’t explore as much as the TV adaptation does is just how often Rhaenyra has been defied by her own allies throughout her reign. Even as her supporters rally behind her, she has also been questioned and ignored, with the latter in particular being the reason she loses her heir, Jace (Harry Collett), in the Battle of the Gullet. When you’ve been ignored that many times by the people who you’re supposed to trust, it wouldn’t be too much of a shock for Rhaenyra to feel like she’s being besieged by all sides.

Photo: Ollie Upton/HBO

Additionally, Rhaenyra’s actions in the season 3 finale have condemned her to a lonely path going forward. Mysaria is no longer on her side, and after Helaena’s death, we highly doubt Alicent will ever forgive her. Then there’s Corlys, who, hypocritical as he may be, isn’t too pleased with Rhaenyra for denying his sons, Addam and Alyn (Abubakar Salim), their birthright as Velaryons. She’s also ostracized herself from her more noble allies earlier in the season, taking from them in an attempt to feed the smallfolk. And a few episodes later, Rhaenyra is hated by them now, too. Even her relationship with her son Joffrey — as well as her sons from Daemon, Aegon III and Viserys II — has turned sour due to either the weight of rulership or them being sent away from her. It’s no wonder, then, that the only person Rhaenyra now seems to turn to for answers is her husband-uncle, Daemon.

It's uncertain how much the season 3 finale changes will impact House of the Dragon season 4. However, given the setup Condal and Hess have provided to depict Rhaenyra’s struggles, we shouldn't be surprised if, when House of the Dragon returns in 2028, we see Rhaenyra the Cruel in her full, paranoid form. %!s()

I’ve seen it described as an anti-doomer essay, but that’s not quite right. It’s more of a description of why Mark Zuckerberg is personally excited about the ways AI is going to change society. Yet, even as Zuckerberg tries to paint a picture of the wonderful future abundant superintelligence will bring, he keeps reminding us of all the ways it’s likely to go wrong.

I find AI exciting too — that’s why I keep writing about it — but a lot of the public sees AI as creepy and unpleasant. So it’s worth pinning down exactly what’s happening here, and why Zuckerberg isn’t doing the industry any favors with essays like this.

Social media is still a sensitive topic in the tech industry, and we don’t have the space here to litigate the relative merits of every single complaint people have about Facebook. Suffice it to say, Facebook as a product and Zuckerberg as a person are both unpopular with the U.S. public. A recent survey found that 64% of Americans believe social media has been harmful to democracy and a similar percentage believe it should be more heavily regulated, numbers that cut evenly across partisan lines. Just this weekend, a court fined the company $567 million for being harmful to children. The vibes are bad.

I don’t bring this up to imply that Zuckerberg should withdraw to the wilderness in shame — but the fallout from social media is one of the central reasons we’re now seeing so much anxiety about the social impact of AI. Whether it’s fair or not, the public does not trust tech executives to make sure new technologies like this have a positive impact on society. Instead of acknowledging that and trying to win back their trust, this essay demonstrates over and over again how the trust was lost in the first place.

A large part of the essay is devoted to hazy generalities about intelligence — very similar to the hazy generalities Zuckerberg and Dorsey used to give about free speech. Here is one for instance:

As everyone gains more powerful tools, each person will become more capable of shaping the future, not less. … People and institutions with competing interests naturally check and balance each other to lead towards positive outcomes. The best and most realistic path to building a positive AI future is by delivering superintelligence to everyone.

I guess? I can think of a few examples of conflicting interests leading to bad outcomes, but let’s put that aside. The weirder thing is that this is being presented as an earnest philosophical conclusion, instead of a specific product called “personal intelligence” that Meta is bringing to market. If you’re already inclined to distrust this person, you might worry that they’re writing all this to convince themselves that nothing bad can happen.

That feeling got more intense for me when Zuckerberg got to the specific examples, many of which are alarmingly out of touch with the reality of how AI tools are being used. For instance, this is Zuckerberg’s take on AI in education:

Everyone will have a personalized tutor and coach with a PhD in every subject and unlimited patience to help you learn anything you want. Students will have extra help in areas they need it that is currently only available to those whose parents can pay. Adults will have a superintelligent learning assistant that knows exactly how to teach you new job skills, new languages, new hobbies, or anything else you’re interested in.

Of course, the product Zuckerberg is describing already exists: This is a consumer chatbot like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. These tools really are helpful if you want to learn about a certain topic, but the main way they’re used in education is to avoid learning, since your personalized tutor can do your homework and write your assigned essay — and because there’s no robust watermarking system in place, there’s no way for teachers to be sure which essays were generated with AI.

This is a pretty low-stakes example of AI harms, but it’s a real thing that is happening right now. Sometimes you design a technology to do good things and it has unintended consequences that make things worse. And the fact that one of the most powerful people in the world refuses to acknowledge this can make people understandably nervous!

Zuckerberg also gives an example of how AI will change the legal system for the better:

As a thought experiment, imagine only one person had a superintelligent lawyer. They would have an unfair advantage in court — even if they were wrong on the merits. That would lead to a worse society. But now imagine everyone has a superintelligent lawyer. In this case, justice would be carried out much more fairly and efficiently than it is today when there is often an imbalance in skills and resources in litigation.

Again, that’s a loaded example. Sure, access to legal AI might lead to a more just society, but it also might add more complexity to the bureaucratic hellscape that already exists. Or it might unleash a new wave of vexatious litigants that just clog up the works with the legal equivalent of spam. It’s hard to feel calm about any of this stuff, and the fact that Zuckerberg isn’t worried makes me more worried.

In other places, even descriptions of Meta’s existing business practices start to take on an oddly abstract character. For instance, this is how Zuckerberg describes Meta’s commitment to a freemium model:

Everyone will have free or affordable access to these tools. … We will offer free versions that will be accessible to billions of people. For those who want to pay to use more compute, there will be a dynamic auction mechanism that will guarantee that everyone gets the lowest price possible for the intelligence and compute they’re using while also ensuring the capacity is used for whatever people collectively find most valuable. This will ensure the benefits of superintelligence are distributed widely.

In broad strokes, I agree with everything he’s saying here. Zuckerberg is right that access is an issue, and he’s right that a freemium model allows for more access than requiring everyone to pay for compute up front. Dynamic markets for spot compute already exist, so it’s not like he’s imagining something completely outside the norm. But there’s a reason every consumer AI product insulates end users from the spot price of the compute they’re using. Surge pricing is a terrible user experience, particularly when it’s deployed on a tool you actually rely on for your work.

Again, I have to assume that Zuckerberg knows this, and he’s not actually planning to set token prices through dynamic auctions. But I’m actually less sure of that now than I was before I read this piece.

There are better ways to talk about this stuff. For all their faults, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei do a pretty good job when they’re directly communicating with the public. They do exactly what Zuckerberg resists here: acknowledging the dangers of AI, emphasizing their own precautions, and trying to convince listeners that they can be trusted.

That communication can only do so much. Sometimes (especially recently), the safeguards fail and the inherent danger of the whole enterprise is made clear. But without some kind of trust-building, the industry may not always be able to survive those failures.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence. %!s()

Those of us in the industry itself aren’t surprised. We’ve been saying this intersection was going to happen. But the growing amount of headlines about construction costs, mortgage rates, and regulations have me asking a different, probably more audacious, question:

“What if this is not just a housing crisis but a creativity crisis?”

What if the shortage is, in fact, also a shortage of vision?
What if the next affordable housing development is already standing?

Because all across the country, vacant schools, old mills, underutilized parking lots, and historic landmarks are getting a second life as housing…strengthening communities in the process.

How?

Tax Credits

On a recent episode of my podcast ChangeMakers, I sat down with Marie Cervay Hickle, the 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐏𝐍𝐂 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤, to discuss how historic tax credits and new markets tax credits are unlocking redevelopment opportunities that might otherwise never happen.

Marie has helped close more than $450 million in tax credit equity investments, and she shared with me practical insights on:

• How historic tax credits help fill financing gaps
• Which types of properties can qualify
• How new markets’ tax credits support investment in underserved communities
• The opportunities of adaptive reuse and neighborhood revitalization

One example of a real-world transformation we discussed was a 125-year-old denim mill in South Carolina that was reimagined into a thriving 205-unit apartment community. What most saw as nothing more than an empty, unusable historic landmark became a place 200 families can call “home.”

The building itself may be historic, but the impact it’s having is current.

Look around your city… What are some places that need revitalization? What “invisible” structures could qualify for a tax credit to become affordable housing?

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Many times, our definition of what affordable housing “should” look like is too narrow.

On another episode, I invited Whitney Hill, whose organization Snap ADU has become one of San Diego’s leading ADU builders, with Whitney herself being recognized by the San Diego Business Journal as one of its 40 Next Top Business Leaders Under Forty.

During our chat, Whitney showed me how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are creating new housing opportunities for aging parents, adult children, caregivers, renters, and even for multigenerational families.

What’s especially interesting is that Whitney didn’t come from a construction background. She saw a housing system struggling to keep pace with demand and 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞.

Our conversation explored entrepreneurship, affordability, and why some of the most impactful solutions don’t require massive developments in the traditional sense…just a bit of creativity and willingness to go outside the box.

There’s no reason this ADU strategy can’t be adapted across major cities to create housing where none currently exists.

How could ADUs fit into your community’s housing strategy? How could it alleviate concerns or disrupt assumptions about affordable housing?

Challenge the Status Quo

Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying the affordable housing crisis isn’t real. No one knows that better than me.

But I also believe that for every problem, there is a solution. And sometimes we’re so focused on the problem that we’re not opening our minds wide enough to what the solution can be. As leaders, we can get so locked into “the way things are” that we don’t exercise our natural creativity to see the way things can be.

And if you’re feeling short on creativity at the moment, then take a page out of Marie and Whitney’s book. They are just two examples of how a little creativity is solving the problem in their communities.

What could that look like for your company? How would it transform your community?
%!s()

Published in Food Policy, the study provides the first comprehensive national mapping of Israel's philanthropic food-aid network. Researchers identified 2,289 active food-aid NGOs, revealing a large and rapidly expanding system supported primarily by philanthropy rather than public funding. The study assesses the network through three dimensions commonly used to evaluate food-aid systems: effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

The research, led by Moran Accos and Prof. Aron M. Troen from the Hebrew University alongside Dr. Orly Tamir from Sheba Medical Center, comes as charitable food assistance is playing a growing role in a number of high-income countries. Similar patterns have been documented in the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada, where food banks and other charitable providers have expanded amid persistent or rising demand.

A vast system with limited visibility

The scale of the network examined in the study is substantial. Among organizations reporting financial data, combined annual turnover reached NIS 6.18 billion (approximately US$1.64 billion). Only 13% of reported turnover came from state allocations, with much of the remaining activity supported through domestic and international donations and in-kind contributions. Reporting organizations also accounted for more than 28,000 salaried employees and 173,000 volunteers.

Despite the scale of these resources, the researchers found significant gaps in the data needed to evaluate their impact. Most organizations provide food products rather than vouchers, but available records do not systematically capture the quantity of food distributed, its nutritional composition, sourcing pathways or final distribution. The researchers therefore could not fully assess whether the network delivers assistance effectively, efficiently and equitably.

Need and provision do not align

The study also identified disparities between the distribution of registered food-aid organizations and patterns of need. Only 4% of registered food-aid NGOs were classified as operating in Arab communities, despite substantially higher reported rates of food insecurity among Arab households. Geographic differences were also evident: 29% of NGOs operated in the Jerusalem region compared with 9% in the North, although both regions have high levels of poverty and account for similar shares of the population.

These findings do not establish that charitable food assistance is ineffective. Rather, they highlight how difficult it can be to evaluate a large, decentralized system when standardized information about recipients, food quality, nutritional value and outcomes is limited.

"From a health system perspective, food insecurity is not only a social issue but a clinical one," said Tamir. "When access to adequate nutrition depends on fragmented charitable systems, the consequences are reflected in population health, disparities and long-term system burden."

The policy role of charity

Across several high-income countries, philanthropic food-aid networks have expanded and, in some cases, have become an important part of the infrastructure responding to food insecurity. The researchers argue that this makes questions of regulation, transparency, coordination and the relationship between charitable and public provision increasingly important. The study places these findings within an ongoing international debate over whether philanthropic food aid complements public welfare systems or, in some circumstances, fills gaps that might otherwise require greater state provision.

"Our findings show both the strength and the limits of philanthropy," said Troen. "Civil society does extraordinary work, but a modern state cannot rely on charity alone to ensure access to healthy food. The real question is whether aid is being delivered equitably, effectively and transparently—and whether philanthropy is complementing public responsibility or being asked to replace it."

The study is careful about drawing conclusions on that question. The available administrative data do not allow researchers to directly link households receiving public benefits with those receiving NGO assistance. The findings instead identify a mismatch between need, public expenditure and philanthropic resources that warrants further investigation into how public and charitable food assistance interact.

Calls for standards and oversight

"Helping families facing food insecurity is an immediate moral imperative," said Accos. "But the policy challenge is year-round. A country cannot treat food security only as a temporary or seasonal act of generosity. It must also ask whether the system is fair, whether it reaches those most in need and whether public institutions are taking sufficient responsibility."

The authors call for more systematic data collection, stronger oversight, nutritional standards and better coordination between charitable organizations and public policy. As philanthropic food-aid networks expand across high-income countries, the researchers argue that clearer frameworks are needed to assess whether assistance reaches populations according to need, provides adequate nutrition and effectively complements public efforts to address food insecurity.

More information

Moran Accos et al, Philanthropic food assistance in high-income countries: Lessons from Israel's food-aid network, Food Policy (2026). DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2026.103069

Who's behind this story?

Lisa Lock

BA art history, MA material culture. Former museum editor, paramedic, and transplant coordinator. Editing for Science X since 2021. Full profile →

Robert Egan

Bachelor's in mathematical biology, Master's in creative writing. Well-traveled with unique perspectives on science and language. Full profile →

Citation: As charitable food aid expands, new study raises questions for food security policy (2026, August 10) retrieved 10 August 2026 from https://phys.org/news/2026-08-charitable-food-aid-policy.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. %!s()