FlashFeed

Full text

In a TikTok video that has racked up 1.4 million likes , men are handed scissors and a sheet of paper and asked to cut out a Christmas tree while describing their favorite memory with their partner. The men start telling a story, but most trail off as they concentrate on the cutting. In another clip, a woman calmly juggles four different chores while her husband struggles to put on socks and hold a conversation simultaneously.

These videos are designed to make you laugh. But they also reflect and reinforce the idea that women are better multitaskers than men. Studies putting this stereotype to the test have yielded very mixed results. Yet the idea that there is a gender difference in the ability to multitask remains lodged in the public mind. Researchers think there are various reasons why the stereotype persists.

Multitasking under the microscope

Science is clear on one thing: multitasking is incredibly difficult. The human brain has evolved to single-task. “We can do things at the same time when they are highly automatized, but other than that, humans in general struggle,” said Marco Hirnstein , professor in cognitive neuroscience at the University of Bergen, Norway. (I was relieved to hear that as I struggled to listen, take notes, and think of my next question all at once during our Zoom call.)

But when it comes to whether women are better multitaskers than men, scientists don’t seem to agree. Early studies seemed to back the stereotype. In 2013 , researchers in the U.K. found that everyone slowed down when multitasking — but men slowed down significantly more. Two years later, a Russian team reported that men used more parts of their brains to multitask and still took longer, suggesting that multitasking requires more effort in men.

Then the picture got complicated. A 2017 study concluded that men and women multitask equally well, even if their brains may go about it differently. In 2018 , when volunteers were given a realistic multitasking challenge — preparing a room for a meeting while fielding distractions — there was no difference between men and women on every measure the researchers tracked: accuracy, time, distance walked, remembering to do the right thing at the right moment, and dealing with distractions. A 2019 study found that multitasking led to a similar loss of speed and accuracy for both men and women.

Then a 2021 study flipped the script entirely, finding that men handled multitasking better than women, which the researchers chalked up to faster mental processing speed in men.

“The findings are incredibly inconsistent,” said Hirnstein . “I would say it’s probably even more inconsistent than you normally get in psychological research.”

Making sense of the research

Tilo Strobach , a professor in general psychology at MSH Medical School Hamburg, Germany, suspects that the mixed findings are due to differences in study design. “My feeling is that this mix is because of the different types of multitasking situations that were used across the studies,” he said.

Multitasking means doing two or more things simultaneously or in rapid succession. So talking while driving counts, but so does cooking, as it involves a quick sequence of steps. Different studies use different multitasking setups, with some task combinations overlapping in time and others being more sequential, explained Strobach. This variation in setups, he argues, helps explain why the findings are so mixed.

Gender differences in specific tasks also play a role. Hirnstein’s own research has shown that women tend to be better at finding and remembering words than men . Men are better at imagining what a complex 3D cube would look like if you were to rotate it . If you choose tasks for a multitasking experiment that already favor men or women, “then you’re probably just going to find the same difference that you observe in the single task,” Hirnstein said.

A good example of this is a 2013 study that found men were better at multitasking than women. The researchers traced this difference in multitasking outcomes to men’s superior spatial ability. Interestingly, when women were in the menstrual phase of their cycle — a time when women’s spatial skills are at their highest — the multitasking gap disappeared.

A self-fulfilling prophecy or a kernel of truth?

Strobach is certain that “there’s no difference between men and women at all” when it comes to multitasking ability.

But the stereotype can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, he said. If men expect to do worse than women, that expectation can sap their motivation and effort, increase their anxiety, and drag down their performance — making the stereotype look true even when no real difference in multitasking ability exists.

Hirnstein takes a slightly different view. He agrees that stereotypes affect performance, but believes that performance informs stereotypes too. People watch how others perform and generalize from that. The resulting stereotype is exaggerated and overly generalized, he said, “but there is this kernel of truth.”

Currently, “we don’t have proof that there is a sex difference in multitasking because the data is not consistent enough,” Hirnstein said. But he suspects there is one: “If you measure it right, you probably will find something.”

A specific behavior might drive the stereotype

André and Diana Szameitat, a husband-and-wife research team at Brunel University of London, have offered a different explanation for why the stereotype persists. André Szameitat is deputy director of the university’s Centre for Cognitive and Clinical Neuroscience; Diana Szameitat is an honorary lecturer in its psychology department.

In a study published earlier this year in Psychological Research , the Szameitats asked 41 men and 37 women to juggle five tasks at once in a setup that closely resembled real life. At one table, participants followed a recipe with pretend ingredients. When a kitchen timer rang, they broke off and dashed to a second table for two quick tasks — a phone-number search and a visual search — then returned to cooking. All the while, they watched a slideshow of words, jotting down any on a red background, a task that mimics the act of keeping an eye on a toddler. And every 20 seconds, a speaker played a recorded question they had to answer aloud, such as: “Would you rather lose all your money and valuables, or every photo you’ve ever taken, and why?”

Across the cooking, searching, and monitoring tasks, men and women performed equally well. However, a difference emerged in the talking task. Men failed to answer the questions more than twice as often as women.

When a group of neutral observers, unaware of what the researchers were testing, watched short films of the participants at work, they rated the female multitaskers as being more in control of the task, performing better, and being less stressed than the male multitaskers. Their judgment was highly influenced by the participants’ performance on the conversation task.

André Szameitat said the study showed two things. First, men and women differ in how well they multitask when one of the tasks is talking. Second, other people see this difference and use it to judge how well someone multitasks. “We suggest that this pattern can explain why the stereotype that women are better at multitasking than men may have developed,” he said. But he warned that the results only show a correlation for now, and more work is needed to prove that men’s reticence while multitasking is what drives the stereotype.

For now, it remains unclear whether men strategically drop the conversation to focus, or because they are unable to keep talking while doing something mentally demanding. “It could be a conscious decision,” Hirnstein said. “It could also be that they had so much going on at the same time that something had to give, and the first thing to go was this verbal task.”

If a male partner starts ignoring you mid-conversation while he’s busy with something else (just like the men in those TikTok videos), “one shouldn’t get angry,” Szameitat said. The study suggests this is a common pattern, not rudeness.

But there are settings where a man’s reduced talkativeness could be a serious issue. “There are highly critical situations where communication is essential, for example between pilot and co-pilot or control tower,” Szameitat said. Yet it is not yet known whether the findings would carry over into a high-stress event such as an aviation emergency, or whether the difference might disappear under that kind of pressure. This is a question for future research, Szameitat said. “Because these are early findings, it is important not to overstretch such implications and avoid headlines like ‘Men can’t fly planes’ or alike.”

This article The “women are better multitaskers” stereotype is messier than you think is featured on Big Think .

Full text

GM says it employs more people than any other automaker in the USA.

The company also says it contributes almost $50 billion to the nation’s GDP.

GM does build plenty of cars locally, but it imports many important parts.

With the US’s big 250th anniversary celebration just days away, General Motors is promoting just how American it is and perhaps taking a thinly-veiled swipe at Ford at the same time. Ultimately, neither of the brand’s locally built models is as homegrown as you may have been led to believe.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};

adpushup.que.push(function() {

if (adpushup.config.platform !== "DESKTOP"){

adpushup.triggerAd("0f7e3106-c4d6-4db4-8135-c508879a76f8");

} else {

adpushup.triggerAd("82503191-e1d1-435a-874f-9c78a2a54a2f");

}

});

In a recent post on GM’s News site , Mike Trevorrow, the company’s senior vice president of global manufacturing, put the automaker ahead of every rival, Ford included, on how many Americans it employs. “GM employs the most people of any automaker in the U.S. One in 10 American autoworkers is a GM employee,” the post reads.

Read: GM Added 50 ‘Cobots’ To A Plant Where It Just Laid Off Over 1,000 Workers

Trevorrow doesn’t stop at jobs. He says GM contributed nearly $50 billion to the nation’s GDP in 2025, and that the company has already poured $9 billion into local manufacturing and facilities this year. In its home state of Michigan, GM reckons every $10 in GDP it generates turns into roughly $17 in total economic activity.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};

adpushup.que.push(function() {

if (adpushup.config.platform === "DESKTOP"){

adpushup.triggerAd("ea4d4b5a-f8e5-4d5d-9d9a-53a3b956b6cd");

} else{

adpushup.triggerAd("44c0a4dc-e25b-4ba5-ac64-2c510461b92a");

}

});

Ford Builds More Cars In The US

Seeing GM promote its American-ness in this way doesn’t come as much of a surprise. surprise. Cross-town rival Ford has been running the same play in recent months, correctly noting that it builds more cars in the US than any other automaker. Some 83 percent of new Fords assembled in the US are sold here too.

As noted by the Detroit Free Press , GM has also said it has faced less exposure to tariffs than Ford because it uses fewer foreign suppliers for its parts. Recent filings have revealed GM expects to receive $500 million in tariff reimbursements after the Supreme Court ruled President Trump’s tariffs were illegal earlier this year. By comparison, Ford expects to receive $1.3 billion in reimbursements, revealing that it relies more heavily on foreign imports.

What Cars Are The Most American?

However, a recent study from Cars.com tells a less flattering story, because neither GM nor Ford ranks particularly high among the most American-made cars on sale. Of all passenger cars weighing less than 8,500 lbs (3,856 kg), the Tesla Model 3 and Model Y top the list, trailed by the Jeep Gladiator, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Cherokee L, and the Honda Ridgeline.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};

adpushup.que.push(function() {

if (adpushup.config.platform !== "DESKTOP"){

adpushup.triggerAd("bb7964e9-07de-4b06-a83e-ead35079d53c");

} else {

adpushup.triggerAd("9b1169d9-7a89-4971-a77f-1397f7588751");

}

});

GM doesn’t crack the top 20 at all. Its most American-made model lands 25th overall, sitting behind the Lexus TX, Honda Accord, Acura MDX, Toyota Camry, Acura RDX, Kia EV9, and Toyota Tundra, every one of them a foreign brand building cars on American soil while GM makes the loudest patriotic noise.

By comparison, the most American-made Ford vehicle is 11th, the Navigator. Of the 86 most American-made vehicles, just 13 are produced by GM and 9 by Ford.

var adpushup = window.adpushup = window.adpushup || {que:[]};

adpushup.que.push(function() {

if (adpushup.config.platform !== "DESKTOP"){

adpushup.triggerAd("bb7964e9-07de-4b06-a83e-ead35079d53c");

} else {

adpushup.triggerAd("9b1169d9-7a89-4971-a77f-1397f7588751");

}

});

Full text

It was love at first sight. I knew I was meant to play cozy horror farming sim Grave Seasons as soon as I learned about its unconventional story of an ex-convict restoring the dark fairytale town Ashenridge, where handsome farmers, werewolves, and other serial killers exist in bloody disharmony.

"Grave Seasons is really special in that we don't hold back on the horror elements," developer Perfect Garbage co-founder and narrative director Emmett Nahil tells me during a Summer Game Fest 2026 interview, where I was happy to discover the game seems just as bold as I'd hoped.

I got to play a bit of Grave Seasons' introduction, where I wander a farm and dig up some plots for carrot plants, but I arrive in Ashenridge in a conspicuous prison jumpsuit. From just this experience, it's easy for me to determine the pastoral town isn't your typical, green suburbia, where khaki shorts neighbors smirk privately at those they think dress a little funny, and it isn't your Animal Crossing island, either, where you suppress feelings of hatred for community members because their little piggy noses are pretty cute. Developer Perfect Garbage's eerie countryside is different: there's death and emotional challenges as you define your new life as a reformed criminal, which makes my interest swell – like a diseased artery!

(Image credit: Perfect Garbage) You have one in-game year to learn who's the supernatural murderer terrorizing Ashenridge, whether or not they're the love of your life, and what you should do with that information. Save the world and prove that you've changed? Or keep filling up your watering can like nothing's wrong?

It'll probably be tougher than you think. Nahil says, "I always want to see more moral ambiguity, generally" in story narratives, and Grave Seasons has no easy answers.

Nahil continues, "I find a lot of game writing, when done to the broadest audience possible, can fall into a sort of good-versus-bad binary. Some of the games that I like most have really embraced the middle area, embrace that moral grayness, embrace the complicated repercussions of player decisions."

Putting players into the trudging shoes of protagonist Dara – whose appearance is customizable, but who begins Grave Seasons in that sickly orange jumpsuit no matter what – is the perfect way to force a nuanced mindset from the beginning. Nahil says he wants players to "embrace the fun, roguish nature of Dara. I really want them to feel like they can experiment with their choices and have fun, and also experience the consequences of maybe not-so-savory reactions."

(Image credit: Perfect Garbage) This is the kind of daring narrative ambition I always crave in horror, specifically, which I think has a duty to be visceral, itchy, and extra-impactful on an innocent audience member's sense of self. More specifically, Nahil says, "I want players to learn that it's worthwhile to get to know the people around you, to really learn deeply about the people that are in your community, no matter what kind of person you are. That's what Grave Seasons does best."

(Image credit: Perfect Garbage) Maybe I should switch to rollercoasters, or a glass of wine, but I've always had the desperate need for art to encourage me toward emotional places I never thought of going before. With its unique premise and magnanimous thoughts about community, it seems like Grave Seasons can do that with only a few bite marks and bags of carrot seeds.

I can't wait. Grave Seasons' original August 14 release date has been delayed to this fall, but I'll sit around until its new launch time is announced. Not patiently!

I'm convinced this farming sim horror demo is better than anything you'll play during Steam Next Fest .

Full text

Sometime in the next few weeks, the decommissioned Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser ex- USS Mobile Bay , the 7th example of her class built, will be sent to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean by friendly forces, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune . The Tarawa class ex-USS Peleliu (LHA-5) amphibious assault ship will also be pummeled to its doom by friendly fire. These are two very high-profile and vastly different targets, which will make for a uniquely interesting pair of SINKEX drills. The event will take place during the 30th Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) biennial international maritime exercise.

RIMPAC 2026 began June 24 and runs through July 31; however, the date and manner of the sinking are not yet known. The sinking exercise (SINKEX) is the capstone event at each RIMPAC , though the type of surplus ship used varies.

The guided-missile cruiser USS Mobile Bay (CG 53) cutting through the Pacific Ocean, Feb. 5, 2019. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jake Greenberg) Petty Officer 2nd Class Jacob L. Greenberg

Mobile Bay was decommissioned in 2023 and determined ineligible to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places a year later, sealing its fate.

Commissioned on Feb. 27, 1987, Mobile Bay took part in a number of major events during its 36 years in service.

“The ship’s operational history includes the 1989 evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon; launching 22 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) in support of Operation Desert Storm and the evacuation of thousands of people displaced by the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the vicinity of Subic Bay, Republic of the Philippines during Operation Fiery Vigil in 1991,” according to the Navy . It also participated in the “U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (CGLED) seizure of 10.5 metric tons of cocaine approximately 800 miles southwest of Acapulco, Mexico, and launching TLAMS in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.”

In addition to the date of its sinking being so far unknown, we also do not know how Mobile Bay will be struck. These events are used to test out a variety of weapons systems and crews to see how they perform. This often includes the ship being hit by many different kinds of weapons.

In the most recent SINKEX, for instance, we wrote that a U.S. Air Force B-2A Spirit bomber fired an AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) at the ex-USS Juneau during Valiant Shield 2026 in the Western Pacific. You can read more about that in our story about that here . Often times everything from torpedoes to short-range missiles to rocket artillery to airborne gunfire is used to maximize the sacrifice of the retired hull.

A U.S. Air Force B-2A Spirit bomber launched an AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) at the ex-USS Juneau during a SINKEX at Valiant Shield 2026. (USAF) USAF

Mobile Bay , which took part in RIMPAC 2022, is one of four Ticonderoga class cruisers set to be disposed of by a SINKEX. In addition, the ex-USS Vella Gulf , the ex-USS Antietam and the ex-USS Port Royal are all facing the same fate, according to Navy records.

The ex-USS Valley Forge was the first of the decommissioned Ticonderogas to be sunk, during target practice in Hawaii in November 2006 .

Crewmembers prepare to say farewell to their ship during the decommissioning ceremony of Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (U.S. Navy photo by Ens. Paula Hackbart/Released) Ensign Paula Hackbart

The Ticonderogas carry Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) and serve as air and missile defense batteries and command and control platforms. They are also equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and MH-60R Sea Hawk helicopters, and execute anti-submarine warfare operations.

Built in the 1980s and early 1990s, these cruisers primarily provide the backbone of a carrier strike group’s air warfare capabilities.

There are nine ships in this class still serving in the Navy. Of those, a half dozen are slated to be decommissioned in the coming years, while the remainder — USS Gettysburg , USS Chosin and USS Cape St. George — have been modernized or are close to finishing modernization and will serve out toward the end of the decade .

USS Gettysburg . (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kaitlin Young)

The effort to keep these ships afloat has been costly and controversial, which you can read more about in our story about the process here .

The Navy is billing RIMPAC 2026 as the largest in the history of these exercises.

PHILIPPINE SEA (Oct. 22, 2014) – The amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu (LHA 5) sails into open water as part of the Peleliu Amphibious Ready Group (PELARG). (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua Hammond/Released) MC1 Joshua Hammond

“Thirty nations, over 30 surface ships, five submarines, 15 national land forces, more than 206 aircraft and 30,000 personnel will train and operate in and around the Hawaiian Islands during the exercise,” the Navy said in a release . “RIMPAC provides a unique training opportunity while fostering and sustaining cooperative relationships among participants that are critical to ensuring the security of sea lanes and stability across the region.”

It will be interesting to see how the ex- Mobile Bay is ultimately disposed of. We will provide an update when more information is available.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The post Ticonderoga Class Cruiser Set To Be Sunk During RIMPAC Wargames appeared first on TWZ .

Full text

Most enterprise AI deployments so far have focused on coding assistants and customer service bots. Morgan Stanley has deployed agents in one of banking's most accuracy-critical, deadline-driven workflows instead — profit and loss (P&L) reconciliation — and cut the work in half. The counterintuitive part: it got there by making the system less autonomous, not more.

Humans stay tightly in the loop, and their decisions are iteratively turned into repeatable rules the system can apply on its own.

“It's much more like a co-worker than a copilot,” Morgan Stanley Managing Director Todd Johnson said at a recent VB AI Impact event. The internal production agentic system, known as FIXR, goes beyond simple, straightforward "gen AI 1.0" tasks. “We think that's where the opportunity is to really unlock more complex work in the organization.”

FIXR behind the scenes

Every trading day, Morgan Stanley’s trade desks handle the important work around transactions such as cash equities or debt investments.

And, at the end of each of those days, controllers must reconcile P&L across the finance giant’s Finance, Risk, Operations, and Trade Capture systems. All that data must come together, and, perhaps not surprisingly, hundreds of thousands of attributes frequently fail to match.

Typically, this means controllers must manually investigate each mismatch (or “break”), make decisions on adjustments, then ideally sign off before the number goes to the desk. And all of this while working on a hard morning deadline.

Previously, this could take up to six hours for a single book. Now, FIXR performs the task in two to three hours, Johnson said. Across the roughly 100 controllers who do this work, that adds up to about 1,500 hours saved per week.

After nightly P&L calculations complete, the system automatically analyzes “breaks” and proposes resolutions based on learned rules. Several agents work together:

One interprets past guidance to develop start-of-day resolutions.

One learns from controller behavior and documents the rules they apply.

One converts repeated patterns into durable, automated logic.

Over time, the system can auto-clear certain breaks it’s encountered before, suggest solutions for others that may be less familiar, ask for help when it’s unsure, and flag for human investigation. When items are repeatedly resolved through the same method, it can create firm rules.

Critically, humans don’t leave the loop, but stay fully in it, he said. They review, approve or correct every recommendation, then feed those decisions back to improve the next run. The agent learns daily from controllers what it gets right and wrong and codifies that knowledge as it iterates.

“You still preserve that element of human accountability even as you start to automate,” Johnson said. “Over time you'll see more and more of those items resolved in an automatic way.”

He emphasized that autonomy requires a great deal of trust; enterprises will not see efficiency gains if everyone's checking everything an agent does.

The human–agent feedback loop was critical to addressing the challenge of controlled, measured, and repeatable automation. “We recognized that all that intelligence that's sitting in the mind of a controller is gonna be difficult to get all into an agent on day one,” Johnson said.

Focus on process-first, extensibility

It was critical to establish processes first, before getting any AI involved, Johnson said. His team ran a “very thorough” process intelligence assessment that mapped and mined workflows to identify where automation would be the most advantageous: Was the answer agents, traditional automation, or simple re-engineering of an inefficient step?

“If we can fix that first before we add agents to the problem, then we really will be transforming the opportunity,” he said.

The P&L sign-off process was full of manual steps suitable for automation, and agents taking over some of these time-consuming tasks are freeing up controllers for “more value-added analysis” and “deeper risk consideration” work, he said.

Extensibility, though, was just as important as time savings. Johnson’s team chose this particular P&L reconciliation use case because hundreds of controllers were doing this work globally across the business (in the Americas, Europe, Asia).

So start with a use case, prove it, extend it, “and then ultimately the transformation will be as we roll this out more and more across the organization,” Johnson said.

Deterministic by design

Johnson said the team also deliberately limited how much of the workflow depended on the model's judgment at all. "If you have an opportunity to make things very prescribed and repeatable, that's cheaper in terms of token consumption, it's more repeatable in terms of controls — and have the LLM do the stuff where you don't need that kind of deterministic workflow," he said.

As the system sees more controller feedback on a given break type, Morgan Stanley converts that pattern into a fixed rule instead of leaving it to the model.

Humans still own the behavior

An interesting (and perhaps fundamental) question being raised at the dawn of the agentic era is: Are agents code or digital employees?

Johnson argues that “they're probably a little bit of both,” and, as such, require nuance when it comes to governance and oversight. Technical teams must still be responsible for maintaining protections and guardrails like firewalls or encryption, for instance.

But there’s a new dynamic around the “performance element”: Humans using agents are responsible for them because it’s aiding their business work. For instance, if a senior controller is working with a junior controller, they don’t just relinquish responsibility because someone is helping them out, Johnson noted.

“One of our strong principles in our AI governance generally is that there always has to be human accountability, even if there's a degree of automation,” he said.

But there typically isn’t “one single one person,” and the process is ultimately continuous. To this point, Johnson joked that one “depressing” thing about agentic AI is that it’s going to require ongoing training because models are ever-changing.

“You're never gonna be able to say: ‘We've done all the evaluation and testing that we need to do. Let's just let it go.’ You're going to have to have a constant view as it evolves over time.”

Morgan Stanley is aiming at real enterprise pain points

Morgan Stanley's experience mirrors patterns VentureBeat has uncovered across enterprise AI deployments.

In VentureBeat's recent VB Pulse survey, nearly three-quarters of respondents reported seeing little to no ROI from custom model fine-tuning, describing a "sandbox graveyard" of AI projects that proved too costly to maintain. This suggests that Morgan Stanley's process-first, buy-and-blend approach may be more sustainable than chasing bespoke models. The survey had 87 respondents and findings should be considered directional.

Governance emerged as another common challenge: 38% of respondents cited the lack of a single accountable owner as their biggest barrier to production AI, while only two of the 87 enterprises surveyed had active monitoring and alerting in place to detect model failures.