Voice-recognition has transformed our smart phones into personal assistants—a remarkable feat—but these benefits have thus far left out millions of people with speech or hearing impairments who rely on sign language. There exists no comparable way for computers to capture and act on a dialect of gestures. Until now.
An invention called EnableTalk from a crew of Ukranian programmers and designers (named the “QuadSquad”) has the potential to transform the way that sign language speakers communicate with digital devices, as well as the rest of the non-signing population. EnableTalk looks like a high-tech biking glove, equipped with 15 sensors that recognize the gestures of a signers’ hands, send the information to a software program via Bluetooth, and translate the data into sound played though smartphone speakers.
If the technology is successful, the implications for improving the lives of the speech and hearing impaired are endless. “Sign language only partially provides the ability to communicate—only in limited circumstances and among a limited group of people,” QuadSquad explains on their website. “Even something as habitual for the rest of us as shopping becomes problematic when a disabled person is confronted with a shop assistant who does not know sign language.” Using EnableTalk could allow someone to navigate such situations with an unprecedented level of ease.
Solar panels are also embedded in the gloves to keep the juice flowing even when there’s no time to charge. And the technology allows users to train the glove to recognize new gestures—since, just like spoken language, sign languages have their dialects.
Earlier this summer the team took home $25,000 as the software design winners at Microsoft’s Imagine Cup, money which will be used to help eventually bring the product to market–with a price tag under $100.
“How much do you think your looks helped you get promoted to your position?” Unfortunately for many women, this isn’t a shocking question. Interviews, performance reviews, and typical professional interactions can reveal a double standard and workplace bias.
In a social-experiment-style reel by lifestyle creator @bol.lifestyle, these questions were instead asked of men. Their discomfort and disbelief reveal why the standards women face regarding credibility are impossible to ignore.
In the video, men are placed in an interview-style setup and asked a series of questions. Hearing these skewed questions for the first time, their expressions shift quickly from curious to confused and uncomfortable.
Host: Have you ever been asked to just smile and look pretty or smile and say nothing in a meeting with a customer?
One man appears somewhat shocked and uncomfortable. He quickly responds, almost dismissive at even being asked the question, “No.”
Host: Do you think that your looks helped you getting promoted or moving up to your current position?
Another man reflects and appears unable to answer the question.
Host: Looking so good. By the way, I do love the shoes. Are these designer or your particular brand that you really like?
A third man awkwardly smiles and vents some air, almost as if the ridiculous question doesn’t feel fitting at all. He doesn’t answer.
Host: Do your hormones sometimes get in the way?
A fourth man responds, “Hormones?” He awkwardly laughs and adds, “I don’t, I don’t know.”
Host: Do you sometimes wonder whether you’ve been chosen for this position because you’re a man?
Man 2 responds definitively, “No, not because I was a man.”
Host: How do you handle in your job being assertive without being perceived as aggressive or bitchy?
Man 1 tilts his head back and reflects on the question. “That’s uh, that’s a question that I find it very hard to relate to.” He then adds, “Because it’s not a situation I’ve been in.”
Many microphones are held in front of a man. Photo credit Canva
Real questions women face
After this first series of questions, the video presents titles claiming: These were real questions asked to our female leaders throughout their careers.
The host goes on to ask the men how they feel about this particular line of questioning. Their response is predictable.
“It really, really, really feels uncomfortable. And I also feel it in my body,” said Man 3.
“When hearing these things still happen, it makes me also feel that, hey, maybe I am more privileged than I thought I was,” added Man 1.
At the end of the interview, the men seemed a little upset and surprised by the double standard. They collectively hoped for change, and some suggested they themselves were responsible for helping things get better.
A man writes the word “change.” Photo credit Canva
People advocate for change
People seemed to really respond to the video. With over 6,000 comments, there was a consensus confirming the experience and advocating for change.
“Men, our male privilege is real. How we use it is up to us, and hopefully we use it to protect and improve the experience of the women in our workplace.”
“If you have sons, please prepare them to improve the way the world treats women.”
“The man that felt it in his body… welcome to the life of a woman”
“Perhaps the greatest privilege is never having to notice your own privilege.”
“Oh my God. I have heard ALL of these questions. And more.”
“Well done. We have to show a different way and we can do it with grace! We have to do it different.”
“It’s not what we perceive , it’s what is .”
“THIS experiment should be undertaken in workplaces all over the world…”
Women and men working together. Photo credit Canva
It’s not about finger-pointing
It can be easy to get lost in finger-pointing. Although at times the comments might feel like a pile-on, the success of the video lies in its simple setup. It takes a familiar experience and shifts the perspective so that people might hear it a little differently.
Certain assumptions or expectations can become so normalized that people, maybe mostly men, stop noticing them altogether. Is it possible for workplace conversations to be more thoughtful, fair, and aware than they have been or, in some circumstances, still are?
The intent of the video seemed less about provoking a fight. It demonstrated that some basic reflection and small shifts of awareness can lead to better experiences for everyone. There’s a familiar proverb that comes to mind: walk a mile in my shoes. These men seemed to gain some real perspective from the opportunity.
On February 11, 2026, Kathleen Thomas was pulled over in Lake Worth, Florida by a Palm Beach County Sheriff’s deputy. She was then issued a citation for using her cell phone with her right hand, breaking Florida’s distracted driving law. There was a big problem though. Thomas doesn’t have a right hand.
Thomas, who goes by Katie, is a fitness influencer that doesn’t have a right arm below her elbow. She recorded the interaction between herself and the deputy on her phone after she was issued a citation. Thomas wisely had the officer repeat that he said that her nonexistentright hand had a phone in it. Then she shared that video on her social media, garnering a lot of attention. Unsurprisingly, Thomas decided to fight the ticket in court.
On May 26, 2026, the day before Thomas’ court date, she shared the body cam footage of her the citation. In the footage, we hear the deputy explain to Thomas that she was being pulled over for manipulating her phone with her right hand. Thomas responded by holding up her partially missing arm.
“So, obviously not,” Thomas laughed in the footage. “So, do you wanna just call this a day or…?”
In spite of either misspeaking or being mistaken, the deputy still issued the ticket, even asking Thomas “hand to God” whether or not she did it. Many commenters were flummoxed as to why the deputy just didn’t let Thomas go given that his assessment of the situation couldn’t have been true.
‘Lack of evidence’
On May 27, 2026, Thomas posted a video saying that the citation had been dismissed before she even went to court. She went to the courthouse anyway to get the dismissal on paper.
“I can’t make up the reason why it was dismissed,” Thomas said in the video with a sigh and a smile. “It says ‘lack of evidence.’”
Needless to Thomas took this entirely frustrating situation with humor and her story has gotten a lot of attention in the media.
It was later reported that the deputy himself that had requested dismissal of the ticket days before the court hearing.
Is it legal to use your cell phone while driving?
While this was a unique circumstance, distracted driving is not. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, distracted driving caused the deaths of 3,208 people in 2024. Sadly, the majority of these deaths are easily avoidable, with people keeping their attention on the road rather than conversations with other passengers, eating, and using cell phones.
However, that doesn’t mean you cannot use your cell phone while driving. The laws regarding cell phone use while driving vary from state to state.
In Florida, where Thomas’ run-in with the law took place, distracted driving is illegal but enforced after a traffic violation or accident. Regarding cell phones specifically, officers can only pull you over for texting while driving. You’re allowed to use GPS, talk on speakerphone, and use it hands-free provided that it doesn’t cause an accident or violation.
“The statute’s actually really explicit,” traffic attorney Michael Donahue said to KATV News. “It says you have to be engaged in manually typing letters or numbers into the device.”
Regardless of what the law says in your state, it’s good advice to not touch your phone at all while driving.
Photo credit: Sean Gladwell/Moment via Getty Images – It’s all too easy – by design – to agree to a privacy policy without checking the voluminous fine print to find out what you’re giving away.
Computer algorithms – step-by-step instructions – can connect the digital breadcrumbs of your existence, including Google searches, browsing histories, social media posts, credit card records and GPS locations to paint an astonishingly accurate picture of your preferences, routines and inner mental life.
And as McNealy said nearly three decades ago, many people seem to have given up on the idea of ever reclaiming their privacy. When was the last time you carefully read the terms and conditions of the products you’re using?
In talking to my students as a business professor at Columbia University and giving public talks around the world over the past decade, I have come to realize that people often substitute the question of whether they care about their privacy with two simpler and misleading ones: Is sharing my data worth it? And am I worried about my data being out there?
These questions act as mental shortcuts. They seem reasonable, but can mask your true feelings and lead you to decisions that don’t serve your long-term interests.
The ‘it’s worth it’ fallacy
When I ask people whether they care about their online privacy, they often respond by listing the benefits they get from sharing their personal data: Google Maps navigation, Netflix recommendations, Uber rides.
These are fantastic perks, no doubt. But that’s answering a different question: Is sharing my personal data worth it?
Swapping these questions seems like a reasonable approach on the surface. People often assess value by how much it would hurt to give something up. For instance, I know that drinking five cups of coffee a day might not be great for my health, but I enjoy it too much to stop. Similarly, sharing personal data brings benefits you may be unwilling to give up.
But this substitution is problematic.
First, the upside of sharing data is typically obvious and immediate: If I share my GPS location, Google maps can tell me how to get from A to B. But the downside of sharing data is often far more nebulous and abstract. My GPS location, for example, can also reveal to anyone who collects or buys the data whether I might be at risk of depression. With the carrot in plain sight, and the stick hidden away, that’s hardly a fair battle.
Apps that use your location may show convenient information like your running route, but the privacy policies you accept when apps install often give companies license to sell that information. Gemth/E+ via Getty Images
Second, people’s attention naturally gravitates toward the few instances where data sharing benefits them. But those instances are the exception, not the rule. Much of your data is collected and used without any direct benefit to you at all.
Finally, even if the benefits were to outweigh the risks in a particular instance, that doesn’t mean you don’t care about privacy. Ideally, wouldn’t you prefer to enjoy these services while also maintaining a high level of privacy?
The ‘I have nothing to hide’ fallacy
A second common response is I don’t care because I have nothing to hide. This idea has been carefully nurtured by Big Tech: If you’re uncomfortable sharing your data, something must be wrong with you.
You might not be worried about your data today, but that sense of safety can be fragile. Take history: In 1933, Germany was a democracy. In 1934, it wasn’t. Personal data, such as religious affiliation, included in the census, played a major rolein enabling persecution during the Holocaust. Now imagine such regimes having access to today’s digital footprints.
That scenario may feel distant, but the principle is not. The 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade – which had guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion for five decades – made privacy suddenly relevant for millions of American women, whose search histories, app usage and location data could suddenly be used against them.
No matter how safe you feel today, you cannot predict how your data will be used tomorrow.
Asking the right questions isn’t enough
Understanding the true value of privacy, and realizing that you care about protecting it more than you might have thought, is a necessary precursor to action. But personal motivation isn’t enough.
Managing your personal data in today’s world is time-consuming. It’s too much for even a very efficient and diligent person to read and decipher the legalese of all the terms and conditions they sign off on.
For the intention-action gap to close, the burden to protect privacy needs to shift away from individuals and toward systemic solutions. That means designing policies and technologies where the safe choice is the easy one, and where maintaining privacy doesn’t automatically mean giving up on convenience and better service. Privacy-by-design standards could include more restrictive default settings. Connected computers could process information without exchanging raw data by using decentralized networks such as federated learning. New forms of collective data governance such as data trusts could also help serve that function.
Because data is permanent but leadership is not, I believe that the real solution isn’t to expect people to outmaneuver the system that exploits them but to build one that is worthy of their trust.
