Summary of “Madame Yale Made a Fortune With the 19th Century’s Version of Goop”

Over the course of several hours and multiple outfit changes, she preached her “Religion of Beauty,” regaling the audience with tales of history’s most beautiful women, a group that included Helen of Troy, the Roman goddess Diana and, apparently, Madame Yale.
Paltrow’s company markets “UMA Beauty Boosting Day Face Oil,” “GoopGlow Inside Out Glow Kit” and “G.Tox Malachite + AHA Pore Refining Tonic.” Madame Yale hawked “Skin Food,” “Elixir of Beauty” and “Yale’s Magical Secret.” Paltrow is behind a slick periodical, Goop, that is part wellness magazine and part product catalog.
Goop claims its G.Tox will “Increase cell turnover and detoxify pores.” Madame Yale said her “Blood Tonic” would “Drive impurities from the system as the rain drives the debris along the gutters.” And both, importantly, embodied their brands, presenting themselves as the best possible evidence of their efficacy, though Madame Yale, living in a simpler time before digital media, was far more explicit about it.
Madame Yale rose to fame during a boom era for female beauty entrepreneurs, shortly before Elizabeth Arden and Estée Lauder, whose makeup empires endure today.
Madame Yale stood apart from these makeup moguls by promising to transform women from the inside out, rather than helping them hide their imperfections.
Madame Yale said she had come upon the elixir during a dark period, recalling “My cheeks were sunken, eyes hollow and vacant in expression, and my complexion was to all appearances hopelessly ruined. My suffering was almost unbearable.” She also noted that “Physicians had long before pronounced me beyond their aid.” But when she imbibed Fruitcura regularly after “Discovering” it at age 38, she “Emerged from a life of despair into an existence of sunshine and renewed sensations of youth.” In Yale’s account, sharing Fruitcura with her “Sisters in misery” was now her almost sacred purpose.
In 1908, the U.S. government sued Madame Yale for “Misbranding of drug preparations.” The feds seized more than 1,000 packages of Yale’s products and condemned them as frauds, reporting that Fruitcura was “Found to consist of largely water with 16.66% alcohol by volume, 29.71% of sugar and small quantities of plant drugs.” Yale was slapped with a $500 fine and barred from selling seven of her most popular products, including Fruitcura, Blush of Youth, and Skin Food-almost a third of her total lineup.
Madame Yale’s appeal had supposedly been based on her honest relationship with women and her desire to share the secrets that had made her beautiful.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Welcome to the Era of Fake Products”

A major Wall Street Journal investigation recently revealed that Amazon has listed “Thousands of banned, unsafe, or mislabeled products,” from dangerous children’s products to electronics with fake certifications.
Because there are rarely consequences for selling fakes, beyond a seller disappearing from a site, the seller can just reestablish its presence to continue to move its inventory.
We reached out to Amazon about the fake ‘Ove’ Gloves and the problematic seller.
Although there are currently six sellers for the CARES harness, the only authorized seller on Amazon is River Colony Trading, Fussner said.
In the brick-and-mortar days, a counterfeit product might have a harder time getting onto the shelves of a legitimate business, since it would be in a retailer’s best interest to vet the validity and safety of products the retailer might be liable for selling to a customer.
With so many sellers competing for clicks, one way to win the customer is by offering the lowest price, and it’s often easier to bring the price down if you’re selling a counterfeit.
You don’t even have to manufacture a fake to sell them-just do a search for Kylie Cosmetics or Hydroflask on Alibaba to see barely concealed counterfeits that can be bought in bulk for a fraction of the street price.
A 2018 GAO report on counterfeits recounts that of 47 products agency employees purchased from third-party sellers with good ratings, 20 were fake, as confirmed by the intellectual property rights holders.

The orginal article.

Summary of “How Two Companies Hooked Customers On Products They Rarely Use”

As I wrote in my book, “Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products,” frequently used products form sticky customer habits.
The master of ceremonies made a gracious introduction, saying, “Now we’ll hear from Nir Eyal, an expert on consumer habits. Nir is going to teach us how to make home buying and selling into a habit!”.
“There is no way I am going to teach you how to make home buying and selling into a habit, because it has no chance of ever becoming a habit.”
There are at least two ways to build a habit around an infrequently used product: content and community.
There are lots of ways to bring customers back, and many companies succeed without relying on customers’ habits.
How do infrequently used products bolt on a habit-forming customer experience? The first way is by making a habit of consuming great content.
Community Another way infrequently used products form a habit is by building a community.
Rather than trying to make the product into a habit, infrequently used products should build habits around the product.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Are You Really the Product?”

Facebook doesn’t really care about its users, the saying implies, because they’re not the ones ultimately opening their wallets; advertisers are.
The people who accused TV of treating viewers as the product had a very different beef than the ones now alleging that Facebook and other internet platforms mistreat their users.
The personalized-advertising model employed by Facebook, Google, and other online platforms is the product of that unholy union.
Facebook’s own response to the notion of its customers being the product didn’t exactly help its cause.
What people seem to mean when they say that you’re Facebook’s product is that Facebook treats you like a product-that it fails to respect your individualism, your humanity, or your long-term interests.
So the real questions are: Is Facebook’s free model the primary cause of its shortcomings as a source of information and a guardian of users’ data? And if so, what possible remedies does that suggest? Specifically: Would requiring people to pay for Facebook really fix its problems?
Facebook’s mistake in the Cambridge Analytica case was that it failed to treat users’ data as a valuable product.
If we don’t like how Facebook is treating us, we shouldn’t throw up our hands and call ourselves the product of a system over which we have no control.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Is Lab-Grown Meat Really Meat?”

The debate over cultured meat is also fundamentally different from these earlier case studies, because unlike margarine or soymilk, cultured meat is biochemically identical to the substance it’s competing with.
So the question of who is going to dictate the labeling of cultured meat is something of a riddle, because it really depends on whether you see cultured meat as meat.
This brings us to our second question, which is less bureaucratic, and more philosophical: What is meat anyway? Is this cultured meat truly meat? Should it be called meat in the first place? The lab-grown meat companies I spoke with are clear on their answer to this question: yes.
The Federal Meat Inspection Act defines meat this way: “The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, diaphragm, heart, or esophagus, with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and the portions of bone, skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and that are not separated from it in the process of dressing.” Under this admittedly unwieldy definition, meat grown in a lab from animal cells counts as meat.
When people buy meat, what do they think they’re getting? Does the average consumer consider meat to be animal flesh? Or does she imagine a cow being sent to slaughter? Is meat the muscle of an animal? Or is it the remains of a living creature? If the former, this lab-grown stuff is meat.
The FDA hasn’t said what it will do about the meat terminology, but if its past history is any indication, it’s not unreasonable to guess that these cultured-meat companies will be allowed to use the terms meat and beef.
Assuming they’re allowed to call their product meat, what should the additional words and labeling be to clarify what kind of meat it is? Some cultured-meat advocates are pushing clean meat, arguing that this lab-grown meat is better for the environment.
Companies might be asked to add clarifying language to their packaging that explains that the meat was grown in a lab.

The orginal article.

Summary of “The Plant-Based Diet: What Is It?”

Though plenty of vegetarian and vegan diets don’t include anything made to imitate meat, “Meatless meat” and “Plant-based protein” are nothing new.
Usage of “Plant-based” is now expanding from shorthand for “Meat substitute” to refer to just about everything, including products that were already vegan or vegetarian to begin with.
Describing a product as specifically plant-based when the product it’s riffing on is also plant-based is redundant at best and cynical at worst, an attempt to sell customers something “New” that’s not really that new.
The term “Plant-based” was coined in 1980 by biochemist Thomas Colin Campbell, who employed it to present his research on a non-animal-product diet in a way that he felt wouldn’t be clouded by politics.
He went on to advocate a diet of “Whole foods,” though not everyone who eats a plant-based diet focuses on unprocessed and “Nutritious” food.
Of course, that’s a veneer – a bowl of mashed potatoes or a bag of Takis technically qualifies as plant-based, though these items probably aren’t what people think of when they think “Healthy.” But the term doesn’t come with the baggage of “Vegan.” “Using ‘plant-based’ allows people to feel they’re not joining a specific group for eating a specific way,” says Varian.
A Google search brings up plant-based celery juice, pumpkin seeds, tofu, oatmeal, and black beans, all of which espouse their plant base or “Plant-based protein,” and all of which have always been made from plants.
With interest in a plant-based diet steadily growing, it behooves any plant product to advertise itself as such, even if thinking about it for two seconds would probably remind you that pasta or chips or beans are and always have been plant-based.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Looking for the right makeup? Let AI pick it for you. – Experience Magazine”

Want foundation made specifically for your skin type, color, and concerns? Want to monitor the pH level in your skin or the moisture level in your hair? Want custom-printed nail stickers that match the precise shape of your nails? Thanks to technology, that’s all achievable.
“We are always looking for self-improvement, and the idea that a product exists that understands me – and knows what my skin, my hair, and teeth are like – is very seductive,” says Robin Raskin, founder of Living in Digital Times, an events company that brings together technology and lifestyle brands.
“Technology can now measure unique aspects of the skin that are impossible to discern with the naked eye,” says Joshua Zeichner, M.D., director of cosmetic and clinical research in the department of dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital.
For someone like me, with difficult skin – hormonal cystic acne sufferers, raise a hand, please – the products can seem like magic.
A device blended the made-to-measure makeup at the counter while I watched – like a paint machine at the hardware store, but for skin.
The company is also developing a small, patch-like sensor, placed on the inner arm, that would track your skin’s pH levels by measuring droplets of sweat from your pores – then reveal the results on an app, and, again, suggest products to buy.
Neutrogena has a “360 Skin Scanner,” which uses your smartphone’s camera to measure facial moisture levels, wrinkle depth, pore size, and skin texture.
“We wanted to solve that issue by creating a machine to measure skin tone, and offer everyone a customized product that they wouldn’t be able to find elsewhere,” he says.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Tech Companies Are Addicting People. But Should They Stop?”

Watching an episode of the television show My Strange Addiction spotlights people suffering from addictions to eating paint, smelling pine cleaner, and even “Balloon loving.” It’s hard to justify asking the makers of every product to warn every possible user against every conceivable misuse.
Clearly, there are many things tech companies could do to help users break the cycle of addiction.
While there’s nothing unethical about being a patron’s favorite brand, a line is crossed when a company knowingly exploits people with addiction problems the way the gaming and gambling industries do.
Though most American casinos are required by law to have “Self-exclusion” programs for gamblers who wish to stop their addiction, casinos have been known to welcome problem gamblers back with open arms.
Of course, tech companies won’t be able to “Cure” addictions, nor should they attempt to do so.
Many products can trigger a Q-tip Effect but the vast majority of people stop using the product when they discover the negative consequences.
People suffering from addiction abuse the product despite the harm.
Companies who are able to identify individuals likely to suffer from addiction have an ethical responsibility to help them quit.

The orginal article.

Summary of “Mossberg: Tim Cook’s Apple had a great decade but no new blockbusters”

The pressure was on for Tim Cook’s Apple to bring out the next beautiful, premium, innovative product Cook, Apple’s savvy head of global operations, knew the company inside out.
Cook spent almost a full year hinting that Apple would do something big in TV, only to pull back when those plans didn’t crystallize.
The first memorable Apple products of the decade were still Jobs-era productions: the much-copied MacBook Air redesign of 2010 and the gorgeous iPhone 4 from that same year.
Apple hasn’t said how many Watches and AirPods it’s sold, but they’re widely believed to be the dominant players in each of their categories and, in the grand Apple tradition, the envy of competitors that scramble to ape them.
Even the iPad, despite annual unit sales that are sharply down from its heyday, generated almost as much revenue by itself in fiscal 2019 as the entire category of “Wearables, home and accessories” where the Apple Watch and AirPods are slotted by Apple.
The biggest change he made came in 2014, before the dip, when Apple introduced two new iPhone 6 models, which belatedly adopted big screens that Android phones had pioneered.
Cook’s biggest forays have been into revenue-generating services, not devices Though Apple is said to be working on augmented reality glasses and some aspect of self-driving cars, Cook’s biggest forays have been into revenue-generating services, not devices.
The list seems to grow every year: Apple Music, Apple Pay, Apple News Plus, an Apple credit card, Apple Arcade, and, most recently, a video streaming service called Apple TV Plus.

The orginal article.

Summary of “This Multibillion-Dollar Corporation Is Controlled by a Penniless Yoga Superstar”

Over two decades ago, when he was a poor young yoga instructor living at the foot of the Himalayas, Baba Ramdev pledged to spend the rest of his life as a sanyasi-a Hindu ascetic.
Ramdev says his worldview is “Scientific, secular, and universal”-but he also claims yoga can “Cure” homosexuality and has openly fantasized about beheading people who refuse to chant nationalist slogans.
Balkrishna had become close to a yoga teacher called Karamveer Maharaj, who accepted Ramdev as a protégé on two conditions: that he remain celibate and never accept money if he began to give lessons himself.
Balkrishna ran the ayurvedic pharmacy, while Ramdev and Karamveer continued to teach yoga.
Stuart Ray Sarbacker, a professor of comparative religion at Oregon State University who’s studied Ramdev’s career, calls him “The most prominent face of yoga in the entire nation.”
Balkrishna would send ayurvedic doctors to Ramdev’s yoga camps, where they’d offer free checkups but charge attendees for medicine.
Ramdev had promised he would teach yoga for free, but he began charging people to sit closer to the stage, according to Bhakti Mehta, a TV executive.
A lab test found human DNA. Ramdev turned his yoga philosophy into a defense.

The orginal article.