Search Statements

Finding a balance between analog and digital practices can lead to a healthier lifestyle for Gen Z.

Hannah Earley's work proves that treating waste as inevitable is a choice, not a law—and other industries should apply the same rethinking.

If reversible computing reduces cooling costs significantly, the total cost of ownership for data centres will shift what customers demand from chip makers.

Not all applications of computing require energy recycling, limiting the scope of reversible computing.

Governments should fund long-term research into reversible computing even if commercial viability remains uncertain for a decade.

Data centre operators should have access to multiple chip designs, including reversible options, so they can choose based on their actual workloads.

Reversible computing is a theoretical dead-end that will never compete with conventional chip efficiency in real-world applications.

Tech companies should include reversible computing research in their climate commitments and measure progress transparently.

The development of energy-recycling chips should be supported by government incentives for sustainable technology.

Whether or not reversible computing scales, the computing industry must measure and publicly report waste heat as a performance metric.

Transitioning to reversible computing may require significant upfront investment that many companies cannot afford.

The list should track long-term impact of past honorees, publishing whether their recognised work actually changed their fields or the world.

The Innovators Under 35 list fails to adequately represent the global diversity of innovation outside the West.

The list should include innovators from non-Western countries at proportions matching global population and research output.

The Innovators Under 35 list should include more voices from marginalized communities to ensure a broader perspective on innovation.

The Innovators Under 35 list overlooks significant contributions from established experts in the field.

Recognising innovators under 35 is vital because radical breakthroughs often come from people without institutional inertia.

The focus on youth in the Innovators Under 35 list promotes ageism by undervaluing older innovators.

Innovations listed should be evaluated on potential societal benefit, not market size or venture capital interest.

The Innovators Under 35 list should openly name the selection criteria and judges, allowing public scrutiny of who gets recognised.