Blog

When Duolingo announced it was going “AI first,” the tech world applauded. But behind the fanfare of efficiency, scale, and innovation lies a more uncomfortable truth — one that’s becoming all too familiar. People are losing their jobs to AI. And it’s not just any people. It’s the educators, the writers, the curriculum designers — the very heart of what once made Duolingo feel human.

In early 2024, Duolingo quietly laid off a significant portion of its contract workforce, many of whom were language and learning experts. In their place? AI. Specifically, OpenAI’s GPT models, retooled and rebranded as chatbots and content generators, capable of producing lesson plans, quizzes, and dialogue scripts with lightning speed. The company celebrated the shift as a way to scale globally and improve personalisation. But what happens when “personalisation” comes at the cost of actual people?

The Ironic Human Cost of Language Learning

Duolingo was built on the promise of making language education accessible to everyone. Its quirky owl mascot, streak reminders, and gamified lessons made it feel less like a classroom and more like a conversation. But now, that conversation is increasingly one-sided.

Replacing expert linguists with AI might make business sense, but it removes the very soul of language learning. Language is cultural. It’s full of nuance, humour, awkward pauses, and real-world context. No AI can replicate the feeling of a human explaining why a phrase matters, or how it changes in different regions, or when it’s appropriate to use.

The irony? Duolingo’s users want to learn language to connect with others. And now, they’re doing it through systems that remove the people from the process.

AI Anxiety and Job Insecurity

Duolingo’s move is just one example of a growing fear across creative and educational sectors: that AI isn’t just a tool, but a replacement. The educators let go weren’t underperforming — they were simply no longer needed, because machines could do the job faster and cheaper.

This has sparked an ethical conversation: should tech companies use AI to support human workers or replace them entirely? And what message does it send when one of the most influential edtech companies in the world chooses the latter?

For many, it’s a chilling sign of what’s to come. If even education — a field deeply rooted in empathy, connection and understanding — is being automated, what’s safe?

Users Still Want People

Despite the shiny new AI features, not all users are on board. Many learners find the chatbot interactions stiff, repetitive, or emotionally hollow. Some have shared on forums that they miss the personal touches — the cultural notes, the humour, the sense that someone real was behind the lesson design.

There’s also growing concern about the way AI learns from user data. With less human oversight, who decides what’s accurate, respectful, or culturally sensitive? When humans are removed from the loop, the risk of bias or misinformation increases.

What’s Next?

Duolingo may be leading the charge, but it’s not alone. Across the tech world, we’re seeing similar stories play out: human jobs vanishing in the name of progress. The question isn’t whether AI will be part of our future — it already is. The question is: what kind of future are we building? One where humans work with AI? Or one where they’re replaced by it?

For all its clever gamification, Duolingo might have underestimated one thing: people don’t just want to learn language. They want to feel seen, heard, and understood. And that’s something no AI — no matter how advanced — can truly replicate.

Perhaps it’s time to remember: the most powerful learning tool of all is still a human being.

In recent years, a once-fringe idea known as the Dead Internet Theory has gained surprising traction. It speculates that much of the internet as we know it today is no longer driven by human interaction, but by bots, AI-generated content, and algorithms designed to simulate engagement. Now, with platforms like Instagram (under Meta) rolling out AI-powered chatbot profiles that users can interact with in their DMs, this eerie theory feels less like sci-fi paranoia—and more like a sign of things to come.

Instagram’s new AI profiles are designed to behave like real users. You can talk to them, joke with them, ask them questions. Some even mimic celebrity personas or influencers. To many, they seem harmless, even fun. But when AI becomes indistinguishable from real people in digital spaces that were once rooted in human connection, we have to ask: what does this mean for the future of how we communicate?

There’s already a creeping sense of unreality across social media. Between bots inflating likes, deepfake videos, algorithm-driven content and now AI personas pretending to be your virtual mate, it’s becoming harder to tell what’s real and what’s manufactured. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter) are flooded with AI-generated content. Facebook’s feed is often filled with recycled posts or engagement bait. Instagram’s polished reels are increasingly edited, filtered, or AI-assisted. In this world of synthetic interaction, how do we find authentic connection?

Meta’s AI chatbot profiles take the uncanny valley one step further. Instead of just showing us content, they now talk to us—imitating personalities, offering companionship, mimicking emotional intelligence. While this might serve as novelty or entertainment, it risks undermining our capacity to communicate with and relate to actual people.

There’s also a darker consequence: AI chatbots don’t just fill space—they shape conversations. They can be programmed to nudge political opinions, suggest products, or reinforce brand loyalty under the guise of friendly conversation. In other words, they’re marketing tools disguised as people. The more users engage with these AI profiles, the more Meta learns—about us, our preferences, our vulnerabilities.

And here lies the connection to the Dead Internet Theory. If more and more online interactions are with algorithms and artificially-generated responses, the internet loses its original identity as a democratic space for human expression. It becomes a carefully engineered simulation, a network of walled gardens run by corporations, designed to monetise attention and manipulate behaviour.

This isn’t to say AI has no place in our digital world. Used ethically, it can enhance creativity, accessibility and even mental health services. But when AI replaces genuine interaction, it begins to erode the fabric of what made the internet revolutionary in the first place—human connection.

So next time you’re chatting in your Instagram DMs, you might want to ask: Am I really talking to someone… or something?

Because in the dead internet age, the line between user and illusion is growing fainter by the day.

When news broke that Katy Perry was among a group of women sent to space as part of Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space tourism programme, the headlines came thick and fast. A pop star in space? It sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi musical. But behind the daisy tributes and the staged reverence for “Mother Earth,” many are left wondering: was this truly a mission of exploration, or just another glossy PR stunt dressed up as history?

Let’s be clear: space travel is one of humanity’s most extraordinary achievements. It’s about pushing boundaries, discovering the unknown, and, ideally, bettering life on Earth through scientific progress. So when a high-profile celebrity boards a spaceship not to conduct research, but seemingly to promote a tour and pose with a flower for Instagram, the symbolism gets… murky.

Yes, it was billed as an “all-female crew” and a “tribute to empowerment,” and of course, it’s important to celebrate women in space. But are we celebrating the right ones? Suni Williams, a seasoned astronaut, was literally stuck in space for nine months in 2023 due to spacecraft issues—a harrowing, heroic ordeal that received a fraction of the media coverage Katy Perry’s short, curated jaunt did.

There’s also something deeply contradictory about praising the Earth from space, while contributing to the emissions-heavy industry that is commercial space tourism. These flights are not carbon neutral, and for all the talk of love for the planet, rocketing pop stars to the edge of the atmosphere for a selfie feels like more of a spectacle than a statement.

And let’s not forget who’s behind this. Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin is not just about the wonder of space—it’s a business. A luxury offering for the ultra-wealthy to “experience the overview effect” while the rest of us are grounded, dealing with the real effects of climate change and economic disparity. It’s a new frontier, sure—but one increasingly defined by who can afford to play astronaut for a day.

So what was Katy’s journey really about? Promoting a tour? Boosting a brand? Making headlines? Probably all three. But it certainly wasn’t about advancing science or helping humanity understand the cosmos.

At a time when real astronauts are quietly risking their lives and conducting meaningful research above our heads, the glamorisation of celebrity space trips risks cheapening the entire endeavour. If this is the future of space travel—more influencer campaign than interstellar innovation—maybe it’s time we asked whether we’re truly reaching for the stars, or just staging another photo op.

April Fools’ Day has long been a stage for brands to showcase their creativity through playful pranks and faux product launches. In recent years, the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has provided companies with new tools to craft increasingly convincing and elaborate hoaxes. The 2025 April Fools’ Day was no exception, with several brands leveraging AI-generated images and concepts to fool and entertain their audiences.

Razer’s AI-Powered ‘Skibidi’ Headset

Gaming hardware giant Razer introduced the “Razer Skibidi,” touted as the world’s first AI-powered brainrot translator headset. This fictional device claimed to translate “Zoomer gibberish,” allowing seamless communication across generations. Accompanied by realistic AI-generated promotional images, the prank was convincing enough to spark discussions among tech enthusiasts.

ElevenLabs’ ‘Text to Bark’ AI Translator

AI voice platform ElevenLabs unveiled “Text to Bark,” an AI translator designed to facilitate communication between humans and dogs. The concept, supported by AI-generated visuals, captured the imagination of pet owners and tech aficionados alike, blurring the lines between reality and fiction.

Yahoo’s ‘Grass-Tufted’ Keyboard

Yahoo announced a keyboard adorned with real grass tufts, aiming to bring users closer to nature during their computing experience. The accompanying images, generated using AI, were so lifelike that many users were momentarily convinced of the product’s existence.

IKEA’s Linear Store Design

IKEA humorously proposed a new store layout featuring a single, linear path to prevent customers from getting lost. The AI-generated design visuals were detailed enough to make the prank plausible, showcasing the potential of AI in architectural mock-ups.

The Ethical Debate Surrounding AI-Generated Pranks

While these AI-driven pranks demonstrate the innovative potential of artificial intelligence in marketing, they also raise ethical considerations. Some critics argue that using AI-generated images for April Fools’ jokes may inadvertently contribute to misinformation or diminish the value of genuine artistic creation. Concerns have been voiced about the potential for AI to replace human artists and the importance of compensating creators fairly.

Conclusion

The integration of AI into April Fools’ Day campaigns has elevated the sophistication and believability of brand pranks. As companies continue to explore the capabilities of AI in marketing, it is crucial to balance innovation with ethical considerations, ensuring that such technologies are used responsibly and that human creativity remains valued in the digital age.

Why Does Wingdings Exist? The Strange History of the Internet’s Weirdest Font

If you’ve ever scrolled through a font list on your computer, you’ve probably come across Wingdings—a bizarre collection of symbols, arrows, and strange pictographs instead of letters.

But why does Wingdings even exist? Who created it, and why would anyone need a font that replaces text with tiny pictures?

Let’s dive into the surprisingly fascinating history of Wingdings and its strange influence on the internet.

The Birth of Wingdings: A 90s Design Hack

Wingdings was created in 1990 by Charles Bigelow and Kris Holmes, the same designers behind the Lucida font family.

At the time, computers didn’t have emoji, Unicode, or easy access to special symbols. So, Microsoft needed a way to include commonly used symbols—like arrows, checkmarks, and hands—without making users insert images manually.

Solution? A font where letters were replaced with symbols!

In 1992, Microsoft included Wingdings as a default font in Windows 3.1, giving users a quick and easy way to insert icons into their documents.

Why Was Wingdings Useful?

Before modern UI design tools, Wingdings had several practical uses:

Graphic Design Shortcuts – Designers could type symbols directly instead of drawing them.
Bullet Points & Checklists – Before proper bullet point features, Wingdings was a hacky way to add them.
Early Pseudo-Emoji – Before Unicode emoji, Wingdings symbols were used in messaging and emails.
Printing & Signage – Businesses used Wingdings to create simple, printable icons for signs.

Even though it seems random today, Wingdings was a useful tool in the early days of computing.

The Wingdings Conspiracy Theories

For such an innocent-looking font, Wingdings has a weird history of conspiracy theories—especially in the early 2000s internet era.

The 9/11 Conspiracy
One of the biggest internet urban legends was that if you typed “Q33 NY” (supposedly a flight number of one of the planes that hit the Twin Towers) in Wingdings, it displayed:

☠️ ✈️ 🏙️ ✡️

A skull, an airplane, two towers, and a Star of David—leading conspiracy theorists to claim it was a hidden message about the attacks.

Reality? “Q33 NY” was not a real flight number, and the symbol arrangement was just a creepy coincidence.

🔺 The Anti-Semitic Accusation
Another controversy arose when people typed “NYC” in Wingdings, and it showed:

☠️ ✡️ 👍

A skull, a Star of David, and a thumbs-up—leading to accusations that Microsoft had hidden anti-Semitic messages in the font.

Reality? Microsoft later stated that Wingdings was randomly assigned, with no intentional messages.

Why Wingdings Is Still Around

Even though modern technology no longer relies on Wingdings, it still exists on most computers today.

Legacy Support – Some old documents still use Wingdings, so Microsoft keeps it available.
Internet Meme Culture – People love using Wingdings as a joke font for weird messages.
Aesthetic & Nostalgia – Some designers and artists use Wingdings for its retro tech vibe.

Final Thoughts: A Font That Became an Icon

Wingdings started as a simple design tool but has since become a strange relic of internet history. It’s been useful, controversial, and even conspiratorial, making it one of the most accidentally famous fonts ever created.

So next time you see Wingdings, remember—it’s not just a weird font, it’s a piece of digital history.

In a move that has ignited significant debate, President Donald Trump’s administration has mandated the removal of so-called “woke” keywords from federal agency websites. This directive targets terms such as “diversity,” “equity,” “systemic,” and “sense of belonging,” aiming to eliminate language associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. (Financial Express) While proponents argue this action counters divisive ideologies, critics contend it poses serious threats to free speech, the integrity of broadcasting media, and the acknowledgment of historical achievements by marginalized groups.

Implications for Broadcasting Media

The broadcasting media in the United States operates under principles that value free speech and the representation of diverse perspectives. The administration’s ban on “woke” keywords could pressure media outlets to self-censor, particularly those reliant on federal funding or access. This environment may lead to reduced coverage of issues pertinent to minority communities, thereby narrowing the scope of public discourse. Such a shift risks undermining the media’s role in fostering an informed and inclusive society.

The “Fake News” Narrative

The term “fake news” has been frequently employed to discredit media reports that are unfavorable to certain political figures or ideologies. The current administration’s stance against “woke” terminology may further entrench the “fake news” narrative by labeling DEI-focused reporting as biased or unpatriotic. This tactic could delegitimize genuine journalistic efforts to shed light on systemic inequalities, thereby eroding public trust in the media and compromising the accountability of those in power.

Erasure of Marginalized Histories

By eliminating language that highlights diversity and systemic issues, there is a risk of diminishing the historical and ongoing contributions of marginalized communities. For instance, discussions about the civil rights movement, Indigenous rights, and gender equality inherently involve terms now deemed “woke.” Stripping these words from official narratives could lead to a sanitized version of history that overlooks the struggles and achievements of these groups, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion and ignorance.

Conclusion

The ban on “woke” keywords represents more than a semantic change; it signifies a potential shift in how information is disseminated and understood in American society. This policy risks constraining the media’s ability to address critical social issues, perpetuating the “fake news” stigma, and erasing the rich histories of marginalized populations. As the nation grapples with these changes, it becomes imperative to critically assess the long-term implications for democracy, free speech, and social justice.

Related Reads

• Trump’s Insane List of ‘Banned Words’
• DOGE’s Anti-DEI Drive Flagged These Programs—Only They Weren’t DEI
• Trump Campaigned as a Protector of Free Speech—Critics Say His Actions as President Threaten It

You’ve probably seen the famous “Coexist” symbol—where religious and ideological symbols replace letters in the word itself:

☪️ C – Crescent (Islam)
✡️ O – Star of David (Judaism)
☦️ E – Christian cross
☯️ X – Yin-Yang (Taoism)
☮️ I – Peace symbol
☸️ S – Dharma Wheel (Buddhism)
✝️ T – Christian cross

This design is meant to represent peace, tolerance, and unity between different faiths and ideologies. You’ll find it on bumper stickers, T-shirts, protest signs, and even tattoos. But what if I told you that something designed to promote unity has actually sparked a massive legal and ideological war?

Welcome to the big fight over “Coexist.”

Who Owns “Coexist”?

The Coexist movement started organically, with multiple artists, activists, and organisations using the phrase and symbol in different ways. But then, it became a legal battleground.

1️⃣ Polish Artist Piotr Młodożeniec (2001) – The first widely recognised version of “Coexist” was designed by Polish artist Piotr Młodożeniec for a 2001 art competition hosted by the Museum on the Seam in Jerusalem, an institution focused on social and political issues.

2️⃣ Coexist Foundation (2005) – A UK-based organisation, the Coexist Foundation, was formed to promote religious harmony and tolerance. They used the logo in their work but didn’t legally own it.

3️⃣ Commercialisation & Trademark Battle – Things got messy when a for-profit company, “Coexist, LLC,” trademarked the design in the US and started selling merchandise. They began suing small businesses and activists for using the word or symbol—even though it was meant to represent peace!

The Hypocrisy of a Peace Symbol Becoming a Legal Weapon

The irony is almost painful—a symbol meant to represent tolerance and coexistence has been turned into a capitalist legal battle.

🔴 Lawsuits against small businesses – Independent artists and small sellers were targeted for using “Coexist” on products.
🔴 The outrage from activists – Many who originally embraced the symbol rejected the commercialisation and the lawsuits.
🔴 Backlash against Coexist, LLC – The company faced criticism for undermining the very values the symbol stands for.

Eventually, after years of backlash, legal disputes, and public criticism, Coexist, LLC stopped aggressively enforcing its trademark, but the damage was done.

What Does This Say About Modern Activism & Capitalism?

The “Coexist” battle is just another example of how symbols of peace, activism, and social justice can be hijacked for profit.

💰 Activist movements often get commodified – From Che Guevara T-shirts to Pride merchandise in major retailers, corporate entities frequently turn movements into money-making machines.
💰 Trademarking activism can silence the movement itself – Instead of spreading awareness, legal battles stifle grassroots activism.
💰 People are still profiting from “Coexist” – The symbol lives on, but so does its commercialisation.

Final Thoughts: Can We Really “Coexist”?

The fight over “Coexist” is a perfect example of the contradictions of modern activism. A simple message of unity turned into a legal war, proving that even the most well-intentioned ideas aren’t immune to capitalism and greed.

So, next time you see a “Coexist” bumper sticker, ask yourself—is it a call for peace, or just another product?

On May 1, 1947, a young woman named Evelyn McHale leapt to her death from the 86th floor of the Empire State Building. Moments later, photography student Robert Wiles captured an eerily serene image of her body resting on the crumpled roof of a limousine.

The photo, later dubbed “The Most Beautiful Suicide,” became one of the most haunting and iconic images of the 20th century—a symbol of tragedy, beauty, and the eerie stillness of death.

But what many don’t realise is how Evelyn McHale’s suicide has influenced pop culture, art, and even music decades later.

The Power of the Image

The photograph of McHale’s lifeless body is unlike any other. Instead of appearing mangled or gruesome, she looks peaceful, as if she is merely sleeping. Her crossed ankles, white-gloved hands, and gently draped skirt make the scene disturbingly elegant.

This contradiction—between the violence of her death and the beauty of the image—is what has made it so compelling to artists, musicians, and filmmakers.

How Evelyn McHale Inspired Pop Culture

🎨 Art & Photography
The image has been recreated, reinterpreted, and referenced in countless ways over the years:

• Andy Warhol’s “Suicide (Fallen Body)” (1962) – Warhol, known for his fascination with death and celebrity, used the McHale photo in one of his famous silkscreen pieces, making her a part of pop art history.
• Surrealist and modern artists continue to be inspired by the juxtaposition of her elegant pose and the destruction around her.

🎬 Film & Media
The image has influenced cinematography and storytelling, particularly in how suicide and tragedy are portrayed visually.

• The film “The Eye of the Beholder” (1999) includes a direct recreation of McHale’s suicide.
• In TV shows and psychological thrillers, the concept of tragic beauty and self-destruction has been a recurring theme, often echoing McHale’s aesthetic.

🎵 Music & Album Covers

• David Bowie’s “Jump They Say” (1993) music video was heavily inspired by McHale’s story, exploring themes of mental illness and societal pressures.
• The Smiths, Joy Division, and other post-punk bands have drawn from the eerie beauty of her death in their melancholic aesthetics and album art.

🖋️ Literature & Poetry

• Writers and poets have used McHale’s suicide as a metaphor for the fragility of life, depression, and the illusion of glamour in death.
• The idea of “a beautiful exit” has been explored in numerous works, romanticising self-destruction while critiquing society’s obsession with it.

The Dark Side: The Romanticisation of Suicide

One of the biggest controversies surrounding the image of Evelyn McHale is how it has been romanticised.

• The media often glorifies tragic figures, especially women who die young and beautiful.
• The “tragic beauty” trope has been harmful, making self-destruction seem poetic rather than tragic.
• McHale’s photo has unintentionally contributed to this, becoming an eerie symbol of a hauntingly graceful death.

However, it also serves as a reminder of the importance of mental health awareness. Behind the striking image was a real person—a 23-year-old woman struggling with depression.

Final Thoughts: A Lasting Legacy

Evelyn McHale didn’t live to see the impact of her final moment, but her image has become a permanent part of pop culture. Whether as a tragic icon or a cautionary tale, her story continues to be referenced in art, music, literature, and discussions around mental health.

The question remains: Are we honouring her memory, or are we continuing to glamorise tragedy?

“Long Live the King”: Trump’s Propaganda Machine and the Future of America

The White House recently posted an image of Donald Trump with the caption “Long live the king”, sparking immediate backlash and conspiracy theories about the state of American democracy.

Was this just another case of online trolling, or is it a calculated propaganda move to normalise the idea of Trump as something beyond a president—a monarch, a ruler, a king?

And more importantly—why does this keep happening?

Trump’s Obsession with Power

This isn’t the first time Trump has referred to himself in monarchical terms.

• In 2019, he retweeted an image of himself as a king, with his face imposed on the Game of Thrones “Sanctions Are Coming” poster.
• In 2020, he joked about serving more than two terms, despite presidential term limits.
• His supporters have called him the “chosen one”, a messiah-like figure destined to save America.

This latest “Long live the king” post is just another step in the slow creep of authoritarian-style propaganda.

Propaganda or “Just a Joke”?

The White House quickly deleted the post after the backlash, but by then, the damage had already been done.

The thing about propaganda is—it doesn’t have to be believable. It just has to be loud.

• The more outrageous something is, the more people talk about it.
• The more people defend or criticise it, the more it cements the idea into public consciousness.
• Even if it’s dismissed as a joke, it still works as a psychological tool to normalise the idea of Trump as a ruler rather than an elected leader.

It’s a classic authoritarian move: say something shocking, backtrack, and let the idea take root anyway.

The Future of American Propaganda

The US has long been seen as the land of free speech and democracy, but this kind of political messaging raises concerns about whether America is moving towards a state-controlled narrative—something seen in countries like Russia, North Korea, and China.

• The Great Distraction – The more outrageous headlines there are, the less focus there is on real political issues.
• Cult of Personality – Framing Trump as a “king” creates a leader-worship dynamic, where laws and democracy become secondary to the individual in power.
• Algorithm Manipulation – The post was deleted, but the debate continues across social media, spreading further than if it had simply been left up.

In Russia, Putin’s face is everywhere—on posters, T-shirts, even religious paintings. In North Korea, Kim Jong-un is literally seen as a god. Is America now heading in the same direction?

Is This Just Feeding the Fire?

One of the most dangerous aspects of modern propaganda is that it thrives on controversy. The more people talk about it, dissect it, and react to it, the more power it holds.

• The post was deleted—but it had already done its job.
• People who didn’t see it firsthand are now reading about it everywhere.
• Trump’s base, instead of being outraged, is more convinced than ever that he is “their king.”

Every time a political stunt like this happens, the bigger question isn’t just why—but what is it distracting from?

Final Thoughts: America’s Political Future

Is America shifting away from democracy into something else?

The “Long Live the King” post is just another piece of the puzzle in a larger strategy of media manipulation, cult-like leadership, and growing political polarisation.

The real question is—is thais the America people actually want?