By C. Schall Gontijo According to NOAA's 2023 Annual Climate Report, the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade since 1980. This statistic shows how at this point in time, humanity can make a choice: avert catastrophe or cause irreversible damage to our planet. In this article, we will be discussing current challenges, opportunities and the moral responsibility that accompanies the climate crisis.
Melting glaciers and warming oceans are causing sea levels to rise, threatening coastal populations. There has been an increase and intensification of wildfires, as well as a significant decrease in biodiversity. Not only that, but as our ecosystems are destroyed, animals migrate and come into closer contact with humans, which can therefore potentialize the spread of disease. It is also important to notice that all of these changes will affect vulnerable populations more, due to varying degrees of adaptive capacity, shaped by socioeconomic and locational factors. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has attributed the climate crisis to human activity. The burning of fossil fuels has majorly increased the carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, levels in Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, in order for us to potentially reverse the crisis, we need to adopt solutions urgently, such as the use of renewable energy sources, like solar, wind, or geothermal energy. The Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement are both international treaties that aim to reduce climate change and to promote sustainable development through the setting of goals individual to each country. The lack of legal binding and the lack of initiative to implement practical measures are both elements that hinder progress of those international efforts. This shows us how important and urgent this moment is for humanity, and that if we continue to do nothing to reverse the situation, the climate crisis will only continue to worsen and wipe out the entire human race with it. It is pivotal to recognise that each one of us has a part in this. Governments can set emission targets, regulate pollution, and invest in renewable energy. Corporations can reduce emissions and invest in low-carbon methods. And individuals can do even the simplest of things to help: biking or walking to work instead of taking a car, reducing plastic consumption, and supporting sustainable waste management. It is truly admirable how youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, have been essential in capturing global attention and educating the world, especially the younger generations, about this pressing issue and the need to make the solving of it an international priority. This idea of community is important in finding long term solutions. We need this collaboration to ensure climate justice for all, as well as shared accountability for our situation. So, as the window to limit global warming narrows, will we act decisively, or will we pass the burden of our inaction to future generations? Let us not view climate action as a challenge, but instead as an opportunity to redefine our relationship with our planet, our home.
0 Comments
By A. Kissajikian Imagine you’ve come up with a great product, and now you want everyone to know about it. But where do you start? That’s where companies start their own journey, using the 4 Ps of marketing—product, price, place, and promotion. These four essentials have been used to help build brands, sell products, and connect with customers.
Product: Making Something People Want Think about the first iPhone — Apple created a product that didn't just make calls; it changed how people communicated, entertained themselves, and even navigated the world. Apple focused on making the iPhone user-friendly and beautifully designed, creating a need for people to buy it. To make their product stand out, businesses need to figure out what makes it unique and how it helps people. For example, if a company creates a new eco-friendly water bottle, they might highlight that it’s reusable, made from sustainable materials, and perfect for people who care about the environment. By making products that align with what their target customers value, brands build a strong connection with their audience. We call this the Unique Selling Point, which is what makes the product original and one that people would want to buy. Price: Setting the Right Cost Price is more than just numbers on a tag; it’s a statement about the brand. Setting the price can influence how customers perceive the product. If it is too cheap, people might think it is low quality. If it is expensive, people see it as a luxury. Take Starbucks as an example—they charge more for a coffee than a local café, but people are willing to pay because they see it as an experience, not just a drink. Companies often decide on prices based on how much customers will pay, competitor prices, and production costs. A brand like Uniqlo keeps prices affordable without sacrificing quality. They buy materials in bulk and streamline production, which means they can sell high-quality clothes at lower prices. By doing this, Uniqlo has built a brand that’s accessible and well-loved worldwide. But they have also to consider the market as a whole: what are other brands selling, what is different in their company that might help them raise their price? Thinking about these questions help the brand to increase their prices and not reduce the quantity demanded for the product. Place: Being Where Your Customers Are “Place” is all about where customers can find the product. Brands must know where their audience likes to shop. For instance, luxury brands like Dior or Gucci are available in high-end stores like Neiman Marcus, while Nike products are everywhere, from flagship stores to online platforms. Where a brand decides to sell its products also affects its image. A luxury brand wouldn’t sell in a discount store because it would hurt its reputation. In today’s world, brands use online platforms, too. Many brands, like Nike, have websites and apps where customers can browse and buy anytime. Making products easy to find and buy helps brands reach more people and build loyalty. Place is an aspect that companies have to think about a lot. The “right place” will spread the message that the company wants, their values, and much more. Promotion: Getting the Word Out Promotion is how companies tell the world about their products and make people excited to buy them. Think of Nike’s “Just Do It” slogan—it’s not just a phrase; it’s a powerful message that connects with athletes and fitness fans around the world, encouraging people to aspire to be what they see on screen. Companies use advertising, social media, celebrity endorsement, and even events to promote their products and show off what makes them unique. A great example is Coca-Cola’s campaign: the company invests a lot of time to produce advertisements that are able to evoke feelings from the audience. Their iconic campaign “Share a Coke” as well as personalised bottles with popular names encourages consumers to find the bottle with their name or of someone who they care about. Why do the 4 Ps matter? Using the 4 Ps helps businesses build a consistent brand. When a brand knows its product, chooses the right price, picks the best places to sell, and has a strong promotion plan, it can connect with its target audience and make a lasting impression on them. By A. Kissajikian Sephora's Beauty Insider program, launched in 2007, has become a cornerstone of its customer retention strategy, significantly boosting revenue and solidifying Sephora’s position in the competitive beauty industry. With over 34 million members globally, the program has driven substantial financial returns by fostering a loyal customer base that engages frequently and spends more than non-members. Members of the Beauty Insider program make up around 80% of Sephora’s total sales, showcasing the program’s direct impact on the company’s revenue.
The program’s success can be attributed to its tiered structure, which encourages higher spending with escalating rewards throughout its three levels: Insider, VIB, and Rouge. The Insider customers are free to join and have access to small gifts, whilst the VIB have to spend $350 annually, having a more exclusive access to products. Lastly, Rouge customers have to spend $1000 annually, which includes free shipping, exclusive events, etc. As the customer advances to the next stage, the more they are persuaded to spend more for a more exclusive shopping experience. This structure encourages higher levels of expenditure, with reported increases of 22% in cross-sell revenue and 13-51% in upsell revenue among members. By rewarding higher spenders with increasing benefits, Sephora has effectively encouraged repeat purchases, cross-selling, and upselling, thus contributing significantly to revenue growth. Due to the reward system being long-term (customers have to spend an accumulation annually), this method allows the company to have loyal customers. According to a 2020 McKinsey report, loyalty program members generate 30-60% more incremental revenue compared to non-members. Beyond financial impact, the Beauty Insider program has also contributed to Sephora’s long-term brand loyalty. The program’s unique perks and exclusive access to products are an incentive for the customers to continue buying products. Additionally, Beauty Insider provides Sephora with valuable data on customer preferences, purchase history, and engagement patterns, which the brand uses to tailor marketing efforts and personalize recommendations. This data-driven personalization further enhances customer satisfaction and loyalty, leading to a consistent, long-term relationship with the brand. The program builds a portfolio for the customer based on the data gathered, appealing to the customer’s choices and persuading them to buy more as they see what they like. By continuously adapting the program to align with consumer needs, Sephora has ensured that Beauty Insider remains relevant, reinforcing its position as a leader in the beauty retail space. By A.S Thiollier Let's face it: everyone lies once in a while. It happens. Lies can be harmless – “I love that sweater!”, “the dog ate it!”, or “chego em 5 min” – but, occasionally, they can be quite harmful. Of course, when we lie, we do so on a relatively small scale, and the impacts that result from them, while certainly hurtful, are small as well. However, much like us, companies have the potential to lie, and when they do so, it can be very problematic. Another thing about lies is that they tend to come out eventually, and for companies, this might mean consequences a bit bigger than being grounded...
Nestlé is, at the moment, the largest food and beverage company in the world. The Swiss company produces Nescafé coffee, KitKat chocolates, Perrier sparkling water, nutritional supplements, and, most importantly for this article, infant formula. In the 1970s, Nestlé advertised their formula in developing countries as an alternative to breastfeeding, with the objective of leading mothers to believe the formula was more modern and superior than breast feeding. To do this, they implemented methods such as distributing free samples at hospitals and having sales representatives dress like nurses to get mothers to believe them. Once the campaign was over, mothers had stopped producing their own milk, and had to buy the expensive, and in some cases, unaffordable, formula. In regions of poor sanitation, the water mixed in with the formula was unclean, leading to many newborns becoming sick. Additionally, in the numerous cases of low-income mothers, the inability to purchase enough formula caused malnutrition, increasing the infant mortality rate. Safe to say, this caused an uprising. Activists, such as the Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT), called for a global boycott of Nestlé’s products, that started in 1977 in Minneapolis in the USA, and soon spread to many other countries. In 1981, the World Health Organisation created the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes to prevent misleading campaigns like this one from occurring again. Despite this, speculation that Nestle is breaching this act has continued up to this year, with the revelation that their baby food in low- and middle-income countries has higher sugar content than in other parts of the world. In Senegal and South Africa, a specific baby cereal has 6 grams of sugar per serving, whilst in Switzerland, the very same product had none. Excess sugar at early ages can cause long-term health problems in children, such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, learning, memory, and risk of cognitive impairment. The list goes on. This ethical nightmare cannot go unpunished. And it is not a unique occurrence. All over the world and all throughout history, companies use lies, deceit, and manipulation for personal gain. However, once again, the truth has come out, and NGOs, activists, and news outlets are around to keep us aware, so we can decide what to do about it. And it certainly won't be taking Nestlé’s phone away for a month. By J. McManus Voting is one of the most powerful forms of expression one could acquire. It began as a revolutionary idea in the 1700’s, during the Enlightenment era, when democracy started gaining popularity. Today, over 160 countries and territories use this very concept of choosing people to represent them through a majority vote. But do the polls truly reflect the beliefs and values of the given society?
One of the most important elections held this year is the United States' presidential election. In this election, two main candidates and parties were presented, each with different strategies and opinions to please the public. Donald Trump (Republican) and Kamala Harris (Democrat) competed head-to-head for the votes of the American community. The polling running up to election day indicated an extremely tight race based on relatively few votes in the swing states. To the surprise of many and contrary to all polling indications, Trump had an unexpected landslide victory. This shows that the polling process is very fragile, despite being a key source of information for voters, and this is not the first time the polls underestimated the support for Trump. This brings us to question how accurate the polls are really in defining the future president of the U.S. Many believed that Trump’s political career was over after losing the last election, vocally not accepting the result, and not permitting a smooth transition of government, as well as being subject to several criminal charges. The democratic system in the U.S. is also rather hypocritical and can be seen as a shift to autocracy considering the amount of power the president holds in their hands, such as making treaties, representing their nation, sending troops to protect the nation during an attack, granting pardons, acting as commander-in-chief during war, and more. Trump's specific case is interesting because the U.S. is considered the oldest and perhaps the strongest democracy in the world, however the majority of voting Americans have decided to put a criminal (fraud) back in office after unreliable promises, such as his election promise to build a wall between the United States and Mexico while having the Mexicans pay for it. This authority is like that of a Monarchy and for that reason represents a decline in practical democracy today. The authority Trump has achieved by having majority in congress and in the senate while appointing his loyal followers to keep political positions provides him with a huge amount of power. The presidential campaign strategies were also starkly different in this year’s U.S. elections. The fact is that Trump was the clear Republican candidate from the very beginning whereas Harris only stood in for Biden after a major public blunder during a significant debate. Even before this year’s election, Trump had already gained much fame for his TV roles and attention-calling antics. Although the polls suggested Harris would win, ultimately, fame swayed the votes in Trump’s favour. Since the polls do not require mandatory participation, many people may have chosen to keep their vote confidential or even lie about their candidate in fear of reprisal judgement. If the oldest democracy in the world can decide to move towards autocracy with similar movements being seen in other countries, what is it that the people actually want from their government? Do they want a democratic government to provide service, or do they want to follow orders as part of an autocracy? This will continue to be decided as people around the world continue to exercise their right to vote and the moment of truth will emerge in the election results. By B. Sapoznik Over the past few months, the global media has been strongly centered around the general motif of AI. ChatGPT, Copilot, DALL-E, and many other models have been surrounding countless industries searching for more ease in generating more productivity. Although, AI models bargaining for more efficiency require more potent hardware in return. This market essential has been explored and used by hardware companies, especially in the development of data storage facilities and computer components. Specifically, AI-sustaining GPUs and CPUs have been considered vital for this new computational era. And so, one of the largest hardware manufacturers of the past years, Nvidia, became extremely demanded – raising the company’s valuation and accelerating its research over the past few months. However, any negative result could impact Nvidia’s future for the worst, and they then faced their moment of truth.
The truth is that Nvidia’s moment of truth hasn’t been a moment, but actually a large timeframe of many years. Ever since the media explosion on AI models, their GPUs have been aggressively sought after, and the company has managed to rise to the occasion. Around 4 years ago, it experienced a major success with Volta and Turning Architectures, which were followed by Ampere architecture in 2020 (featuring GeForce RTX 30 Series). The pandemic was a successful epoch for the company, since the increase in domestic time periods meant people were more exposed to computer usage, requiring more innovative components for computers. Around the same years, Nvidia chips were also demanded on a large scale due to the popularity of cryptocurrencies. Nvidia hardware was frequently used to conduct mining operations, receiving tariffs for blockchain transactions of any cryptocurrencies. The need for cutting-edge hardware in cryptocurrency mining is due to the split-second competition between users to receive blockchain commissions. Much of Nvidia’s further investments were not only related with creating more prominent future hardware models (like the Hopper Architecture model), but also in datacenters. These same datacenters were later used to train AI models – also using Nvidia hardware devices. Partially, the global explosion of GPTs and generative AI models are somewhat due to Nvidia’s investments and expenditures, which sustained the base for the expansion of AI models. Proof of the company’s relative success can be seen in its financial terms. Its overall revenue in 2024 has reached over U$D 60.92 billion, a surprising increase compared to its U$D 26.97 billion revenue from 2023. Simultaneously, Nvidia has become the most valuable company in terms of market cap (estimated around U$D 3.6 trillion), surpassing all other major technology companies. This has been Nvidia’s moment of truth. The past few years have been a stage for global outbreaks in technological advancements. From gaming to crypto to AI, Nvidia has always been there, testing and releasing new models – adapting for the present and future requirements of society. Even in the past few months, the company has been able to develop other innovations to their products. The launch of Grace Architecture model for CPUs and GPUs is just another expansion of the company’s arsenal, contributing to their relevance in the industry. This, of course, has been a product of many years of investment, research, and preparation from the company. However, its actions are still creditable, since it has been in the spotlight in technology for the past years. Any flaw committed by the company could lead to a snowballing cascade, plummeting its legacy, leading to the company’s devaluation. However, it can be clearly stated that hitherto, Nvidia has been extremely successful in its moment of truth and is probably an asset worth observing closely for the future. Bibliography:
By M. Marques Having a “moment of truth” or an “epiphany” is subjective. It could be a ground-breaking discovery, like disproving a 1,000-year-old cosmological theory, or as simple as realising that the relationship you’re in is not right for you - and both are equally important in their own way.
Not knowing whether to continue investing in your relationship – romantic or otherwise – can be overwhelming, but perfectly normal; you just have to find the right mindset to approach the situation. Say you’re in a relationship of any type with someone, and you feel like they aren’t treating you well. You ask yourself, “If this person isn’t being nice to me, why am I still committing to them?”. But then, you remember all of those times when they’ve been accommodating, and, in those moments, you felt like the negative parts of the relationship were only temporary. You felt that they had the potential to be a good person, although sometimes they ‘slip’. You’ve seen their good side, and you know it exists, so as long as you keep investing in the relationship, they’ll change how they act with you. Now, imagine you’re trying to quit caffeine, so you’ve stopped drinking energy drinks, but you still drink coffee because you like it. Just because you stopped drinking energy drinks, have you quit caffeine? No, because you still drink coffee. Can you take the caffeine away from caffeinated coffee? No, you can’t. You’d have to start drinking another type of coffee. So you should stop drinking caffeinated coffee altogether. That’s a simple analogy to help understand the relationship problem. You’ve done everything you could to reduce the negative impacts of your relationship, but you’re still in it, you’re still hurting. If you want to quit the negativity, you should quit the relationship altogether. That’s a moment of truth – the realisation that maybe something isn’t right for you, whether it’s in a relationship, a habit, your career, or anything that might be holding you back. By N. Moreau The word ‘mistress’ is a controversial one. Its overwhelmingly negative meaning is relatively recent, only attaining its current definition a few short centuries ago. The first definition found in the Oxford Dictionary is actually “a woman in a position of authority or control,” but paradigms of scandal and infidelity have polluted the word and twisted its original meaning. The complex etymology behind it reveals a lot about the periods this word has passed through, reflecting societal expectations for women and romantic relationships in each time frame.
In present times, it mainly refers to a woman in an illicit relationship with a married man. However, it hasn’t always held this meaning; surprisingly, the word started as the female version of the word ‘master’. It entered the English language in the 14th century through Old French as 'maistresse', which refers to a woman in a position of control, whether as the head of a household, a teacher, or a woman with expertise. By the 15th century, there was an evolution of the meaning, and we start to see the term ‘mistress’ in the context of romantic relationships. Contrary to the modern definition, the word was used to refer to a man’s beloved, a courted woman. At one point, it even came to mean fiancée. It is only by the 17th century that the ‘mistress’ becomes a woman in an extramarital affair with a married man. However, this does not mean that before the 17th century there were no mistresses. In fact, they were all the more common, even expected. In many cultures, many powerful men engaged in love affairs outside their marriage. Provided these relationships did not threaten inheritance or social order, they were often overlooked and even romanticized. Women, on the other hand, faced harsher consequences for infidelity due to social emphasis on lineage. Some people even went out of their way to defend and rationalize these affairs, even referencing the concubinage in the Old Testament. Compared to our modern paradigm of a faithful and religious marriage, these justifications sound absurd. However, these excuses were usually tailored to serve personal agendas, as the church viewed adultery as a sin and condemned these interpretations. Nowadays, mistresses are generally viewed as homewreckers, and infidelity is considered a sin. Cheating is unacceptable, regardless of how common it once was. However, one must point out the inequality embedded in these linguistics; if ‘mistress’, as in a woman in a position of authority, is the feminine version of ‘master’, what is the masculine version of ‘mistress’, as in the other woman? This gendered double standard reveals a lot about how our vocabulary can sometimes be misogynistic and our language can be weaponized to serve social standards. Despite all the history and baggage carried by the word, its original meaning is preserved in some specific contexts. An example of this is the title ‘Headmistress’, which refers to the female principal of a school. Hopefully, the word can be reclaimed with this new lens to mean ‘female authority’, not ‘homewrecker’. By: H. Guerra The Marshall Plan, launched by George C. Marshall in 1947, serves as an example of how targeted aid can drive economic growth. After World War II, Europe was in ruins, and the Marshall Plan was pivotal in rebuilding and reshaping the economies across the continent. This plan was not solely about financial aid; it was about setting a foundation for what would later evolve into the economic structures of Western society by the 1980s.
A key element of the Marshall Plan's success was its dual approach: it offered immediate aid to address the urgent needs of war-torn countries and laid down strategies for long-term economic health. This was not simply a monetary fix; it was a thoughtful approach to ensure that the aid provided led to sustainable growth. For instance, the plan helped revive the coal and steel industries, which are core sectors in Germany and France, contributing significantly to what became known as Europe's "Golden Age." The plan also made aid conditional on economic reforms and cooperation, ensuring that funds were used to lead necessary economic changes. This aspect of the Marshall Plan can serve as a model today as we tackle global issues like climate change. Imagine a modern-day Marshall Plan that ties financial aid to green initiatives and technological advancements in developing countries, pushing forward both economic and environmental sustainability. Moreover, the cooperation and economic integration fostered by the Marshall Plan laid the groundwork for what would eventually become the European Union. This shows the power of collective effort - by working together, nations can achieve far more than they can alone. This is a crucial lesson for today, where global challenges require unprecedented levels of international collaboration. In essence, the Marshall Plan teaches us that comprehensive and strategic economic intervention, when done right, can lead to profound and lasting impacts. As we face today’s challenges, revisiting these lessons could be the key to crafting policies that not only address immediate needs but also ensure a sustainable future. |
Categories
All
Archives
February 2025
|