Here’s my comparison of Xero vs Sage and determine which software suits your business’ accounting and financial reporting needs. Xero and Sage are both cloud-based accounting software that help small businesses and accountants manage invoicing, bank reconciliation, financial reporting, and day-to-day bookkeeping. Xero is known for its modern, intuitive interface and wide range of third-party app integrations, while Sage is favored for its strong compliance features, built-in support for VAT and payroll, and familiarity among traditional accountants. Why you can trust TechRepublic At TechRepublic, we publish high-quality, independently researched reviews created by writers who are experts in the fields they cover. Our contributors include seasoned IT professionals, certified accountants, software developers, and industry consultants—people who have worked directly with the tools they evaluate. Every article is built on firsthand experience, in-depth testing, and a deep understanding of what businesses and tech teams actually need to make confident, informed decisions. Xero vs Sage: Comparison table Xero Sage Starting price $20 $12 Number of users Unlimited Up to 5 Free trial 30 days 30 days Bills and invoices 5 and 20 for Early planUnlimited in higher plans Unlimited Inventory management Yes Yes Project tracking Yes Yes Fixes asset management Yes No Xero vs Sage: Pricing Sage Accounting is the more affordable pick in this comparison but it’s limited upto five users only. Xero is a much pricier option but it offers more advanced features and unlimited seats. Xero Xero Early: $20 per month for unlimited users; five bills and 20 invoices only Xero Growing: $47 per month for unlimited users; unlimited bills and invoices Xero Established: $80 per month for unlimited users; unlimited bills and invoices Sage Accounting Start: $12 per month for one user Accounting Standard: $23 to $32 per month for two to five users Xero vs Sage: Feature comparison In my expert opinion, Xero wins when it comes to features, but that doesn’t mean Sage is an inferior pick. Both have their strengths and weaknesses, and my Xero vs Sage comparison really comes down to what your business needs most. I see Sage Accounting as a better fit for users with basic to intermediate needs, while Xero is ideal for those with basic to advanced accounting workflows. If you’re unsure whether to go with Sage or Xero, consider how much flexibility and automation your operations require. Accounts receivable Winner: Xero Xero gives you more control over how you manage receivables. You can automate reminders, set up recurring invoices, and even add late fees—features that help you stay ahead without chasing payments manually. The “Pay Now” option through Stripe or GoCardless makes it easier for clients to pay on time. I’ve found this combo of automation and payment integration especially helpful for improving cash flow, and it’s a key reason I lean toward Xero in my Xero vs Sage comparison. Sage Accounting keeps things much simpler, and that’s its biggest strength. You can create and send invoices quickly using saved customer and product details, and the customization options make your invoices look polished without extra effort. But you won’t get automatic reminders or deep integration with payment platforms, which can slow things down if you’re managing a growing list of receivables. For businesses deciding between Sage vs Xero, Sage is a better fit if you just need the basics done well without too many moving parts. Accounts payable Winner: Xero Xero handles accounts payable with more automation and flexibility. You can upload bills or forward them by email, and Xero will auto-fill the details using OCR. I like that you can schedule payments, set up approval workflows, and batch-pay multiple bills at once — it saves time and cuts down on errors. If you’re managing a high volume of payables, these features make a real difference in the overall Xero vs Sage comparison. Sage Accounting takes a more basic approach, with fewer automation tools on the accounts payable side. Most of its focus is on receivables, but it does let you record and track bills manually. The Debtors Manager module is helpful for chasing payments, but doesn’t do much for managing what you owe. For businesses weighing Sage vs Xero, it’s clear Sage works best when simplicity is the top priority. Project accounting Winner: Xero Xero really gets what project accounting needs to look like. You can build estimates, track labor and materials, and see how each project is performing in real time. The ability to compare actuals to estimates is especially useful when you’re managing budgets closely. If project profitability matters to you, Xero gives you the tools to stay in control. Sage Accounting takes a broader, less detailed approach. Its Project Tracker uses Analysis Codes to track performance across divisions, locations, or jobs, which is helpful for high-level comparisons. But it doesn’t offer the same granularity as Xero — no labor tracking, no real-time costing. For businesses comparing Sage vs Xero, Sage works if you just need to segment reports, but not if you’re tracking project-level profit. Inventory management Winner: Sage Sage Accounting’s inventory tools are built for efficiency and accuracy. With Advanced Inventory, quantities and values update automatically after every sale — no manual journal entries needed. You get a real-time view of stock levels, which helps reduce errors and save time. Everything you need for stock management is centralized, which makes it easier to stay organized as your business grows. Xero covers the basics well but falls short on more advanced inventory features. You can track quantities, costs, and COGS using a perpetual system, and it integrates smoothly with payables and receivables. But you can’t view inventory on purchase orders, and it lacks flexibility in inventory valuation methods. If you’re weighing Xero vs Sage for inventory management, Xero is solid for simple needs — Sage is the better fit when inventory is core to your workflow. Xero pros and cons Pros of Xero Has unlimited users Offers automated invoice reminders and recurring billing Has fixed asset tracking features Includes project tracking and job costing in

The European Space Agency has released the first major batch of data from its “dark universe” telescope Euclid. What’s inside could change our understanding of dark matter and the expansion of the universe. The data comprises just one week’s worth of deep field images from three points in space. They make up just 0.4% of the vast area Euclid will capture, which scientists say will be the largest 3D map of the sky ever created. With one scan of each region so far, Euclid has already spotted 26 million galaxies, each potentially containing millions of stars and billions of planets. The furthest of these galaxies are 10.5 billion light years away from Earth, meaning the images you see are almost as old as the universe itself. The Euclid map of the stars The Cat’s Eye Nebula, one of the most complex planetary nebulae ever seen in space, as captured by Euclid. Credit: ESA Hiding amongst all those millions of galaxies are rare phenomena called gravitational lenses or “Einstein rings,” named as such because they prove Albert Einstein’s prediction that gravity warps spacetime, causing light to bend as it travels through. Gravitational lensing occurs when a massive object, like a galaxy or black hole, bends the light from a galaxy behind it — forming visible distortions or arcs around the galaxy’s nucleus.   The 💜 of EU tech The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now! In this new batch of data, Euclid has more than doubled the number of gravitational lenses that have been captured from space. ESA estimates that Euclid will capture 100,000 strong gravitational lenses by the end of its six-year mission, around 100 times more than currently known.   Today’s data has also revealed an even rarer phenomenon: double gravitational lensing, also called double source plane lensing. This happens when light from two distant galaxies passes through the same galaxy, causing a double lensing effect. Finding double gravitational lenses A collage of gravitational lenses from Euclid’s first major data drop, released today. Credit: ESA Look at the image above and go to the fourth column, third from the bottom. The image is faint but you can make out two outer arcs and then two inner arcs close to the centre of the galaxy nucleus. That’s a double gravitational lens.  Double gravitational lensing could help scientists better understand dark energy and the expansion of the universe, because, in theory, an expanding universe will determine the angle of the arcs.  “Double-source plane lenses are extremely rare — only a few have ever been found,” said Euclid Consortium scientist Mike Walmsley at a press briefing. “But we think we’ve found four good candidates already from just a week’s worth of data covering a fraction of the night sky. We’re confident that Euclid will quickly capture enough of them to allow scientists to start measuring their effects.” To find such rare phenomena hiding amidst Euclid’s images, the European Space Agency (ESA) enlisted the help of thousands of volunteers — and AI algorithms.   Euclid’s AI-powered galaxy finder Launched in 2023, Euclid has observed about 14% of its total survey area so far. By the time its mission is complete, the telescope is expected to capture images of more than 1.5 billion galaxies, sending back around 100GB of data every day.  These images provide scientists with unprecedented opportunities — and huge problems when it comes to finding, categorising, and analysing all the objects within them.  To speed up the process, the Euclid consortium has developed an AI-powered galaxy spotter — called “Zoobot.” The algorithm was trained on decades’ worth of citizen science work, from volunteers who scan through images and identify each object.  A collage of galaxies identified by AI and citizen scientists. Credit: ESA From today’s data drop, Zoobot put together a detailed catalogue of 360,000 galaxies. Thousands of volunteers from the Space Warps citizen science project then sorted through the most promising candidates. That’s how the gravitational lenses were identified.  “We’re at a pivotal moment in terms of how we tackle large-scale surveys in astronomy. AI is a fundamental and necessary part of our process in order to fully exploit Euclid’s vast dataset,” said Walmsley, who has worked on astronomical deep learning algorithms for the last decade. A collage of Euclid Deep Field South, a portion of the night sky never previously captured in such detail. Credit: ESA The dark universe explorer Euclid launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral in Florida on 1 July, 2023. It returned its first images in August of that year, and in May last year released its first scientific data.  Euclid’s mission is to shed light on two of the universe’s most perplexing mysteries: dark energy and dark matter —, thought to make up 95% of the cosmos. Scientists theorise that dark energy is responsible for accelerating the universe’s expansion and that dark matter acts as cosmic glue that holds the galaxies together. Yet the nature of these components is still unknown. To build its 3D map of the night sky, the telescope is deploying two high-tech cameras: VIS, which captures the cosmos in visible light, and NISP, which measures the distances to galaxies and the expansion speed of the universe.  Euclid is set to provide us with an unprecedented chronology of the history of the cosmos and help us unravel the mysteries of the universe – and our own existence. The three deep field previews can now be explored in the ESASky app. Euclid Deep Field South here, Euclid Deep Field Fornax here, Euclid Deep Field North here. source

By Katryna Perera ( March 28, 2025, 3:08 PM EDT) —  A Virginia federal judge has tossed an investor suit alleging that DXC Technology Co. and its top brass overhyped efforts to reduce restructuring and integration costs after acquiring several companies, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege any actionable false statements or knowledge of wrongdoing by the individual defendants…. Law360 is on it, so you are, too. A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions. A Law360 subscription includes features such as Daily newsletters Expert analysis Mobile app Advanced search Judge information Real-time alerts 450K+ searchable archived articles And more! Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial. source

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More As businesses rush to adopt AI, they’re discovering an unexpected truth: Even the most rational enterprise buyers aren’t making purely rational decisions — their subconscious requirements go far beyond the conventional software evaluation standards. Let me share an anecdote: It’s November 2024; I’m sitting in a New York City skyscraper, working with a fashion brand on their first AI assistant. The avatar, Nora, is a 25-year-old digital assistant displayed on a six-foot-tall kiosk. She has sleek brown hair, a chic black suit and a charming smile. She waves “hi” when recognizing a client’s face, nods as they speak and answers questions about company history and tech news. I came prepared with a standard technical checklist: response accuracy, conversation latency, face recognition precision… But my client didn’t even glance at the checklist. Instead, they asked, “Why doesn’t she have her own personality? I asked her favorite handbag, and she didn’t give me one!” Changing how we evaluate technology It’s striking how quickly we forget these avatars aren’t human. While many worry about AI blurring the lines between humans and machines, I see a more immediate challenge for businesses: A fundamental shift in how we evaluate technology. When software begins to look and act human, users stop evaluating it as a tool and begin judging it as a human being. This phenomenon — judging non-human entities by human standards — is anthropomorphism, which has been well-studied in human-pet relationships, and is now emerging in the human-AI relationship. When it comes to procuring AI products, enterprise decisions are not as rational as you might think because decision-makers are still humans. Research has shown that unconscious perceptions shape most human-to-human interactions, and enterprise buyers are no exception. Thus, businesses signing an AI contract aren’t just entering into a “utility contract” seeking cost reduction or revenue growth anymore; they’re entering an implicit “emotional contract.” Often, they don’t even realize it themselves. Getting the ‘AI baby’ perfect? Although every software product has always had an emotional element, when the product becomes infinitely similar to a real human being, this aspect becomes much more prominent and unconscious. These unconscious reactions shape how your employees and customers engage with AI, and my experience tells me how widespread these responses are — they’re truly human. Consider these four examples and their underlying psychological ideas: When my client in New York asked about Nora’s favorite handbag, craving for her personality, they were tapping into social presence theory, treating the AI as a social being that needs to be present and real. One client fixated on their avatar’s smile: “The mouth shows a lot of teeth — it’s unsettling.” This reaction reflects the uncanny valley effect, where nearly human-like features provoke discomfort. Conversely, a visually appealing yet less functional AI agent sparked praise because of the aesthetic-usability effect — the idea that attractiveness can outweigh performance issues. Yet another client, a meticulous business owner, kept delaying the project launch. “We need to get our AI baby perfect,” he repeated in every meeting. “It needs to be flawless before we can show it to the world.” This obsession with creating an idealized AI entity suggests a projection of an ideal self onto our AI creations, as if we’re crafting a digital entity that embodies our highest aspirations and standards. What matters most to your business? So, how can you lead the market by tapping into these hidden emotional contracts and win over your competitors who are just stacking up one fancy AI solution after another? The key is determining what matters for your business’s unique needs. Set up a testing process. This will not only help you identify top priorities but, more importantly, deprioritize minor details, no matter how emotionally compelling. Since the sector is so new, there are almost no readily usable playbooks. But you can be the first mover by establishing your original way of figuring out what suits your business best. For example, the client’s question about “the AI avatar’s personality” was validated by testing with internal users. On the contrary, most people couldn’t tell the difference between the several versions that the business owner had struggled back and forth for his “perfect AI baby,” meaning that we could stop at a “good enough” point. To help you recognize patterns more easily, consider hiring team members or consultants who have a background in psychology. All four examples are not one-off, but are well-researched psychological effects that happen in human-to-human interactions. Your relationship with the tech vendor must also change. They must be a partner who navigates the experience with you. You can set up weekly meetings with them after signing a contract and share your takeaways from testing so they can create better products for you. If you don’t have the budget, at least buffer extra time to compare products and test with users, allowing those hidden “emotional contracts” to surface. We are at the forefront of defining how humans and AI interact. Successful business leaders will embrace the emotional contract and set up processes to navigate the ambiguity that will help them win the market.   Joy Liu has led enterprise products at AI startups and cloud and AI initiatives at Microsoft. source

Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More AI agents have safety and reliability problems. Although agents would allow enterprises to automate more steps in their workflows, they can take unintended actions while executing a task, are not very flexible and are difficult to control. Organizations have already raised the alarm about unreliable agents, worried that once deployed, agents might forget to follow instructions.  OpenAI even admitted that ensuring agent reliability would involve working with outside developers, so it opened up its Agents SDK to help solve this issue.  However, Singapore Management University (SMU) researchers have developed a new approach to solving agent reliability. AgentSpec is a domain-specific framework that lets users “define structured rules that incorporate triggers, predicates and enforcement mechanisms.” The researchers said AgentSpec will make agents work only within the parameters that users want. Guiding LLM-based agents with a new approach AgentSpec is not a new large language model (LLM) but rather an approach to guide LLM-based AI agents. The researchers believe AgentSpec can be used for agents in enterprise settings and self-driving applications.    The first AgentSpec tests integrated on LangChain frameworks, but the researchers said they designed it to be framework-agnostic, meaning it can also run on AutoGen and Apollo ecosystems.  Experiments using AgentSpec showed it prevented “over 90% of unsafe code executions, ensures full compliance in autonomous driving law-violation scenarios, eliminates hazardous actions in embodied agent tasks and operates with millisecond-level overhead.” LLM-generated AgentSpec rules, which used OpenAI’s o1, also had a strong performance and enforced 87% of risky code and prevented “law-breaking in 5 out of 8 scenarios.” Current methods are a little lacking AgentSpec is not the only method for helping developers give agents more control and reliability. Other approaches include ToolEmu and GuardAgent. The startup Galileo launched Agentic Evaluations, a way to ensure agents work as intended. The open-source platform H2O.ai uses predictive models to improve the accuracy of agents used by companies in finance, healthcare, telecommunications and government.  The AgentSpec said researchers said current approaches to mitigate risks, like ToolEmu, effectively identify risks. They noted that “these methods lack interpretability and offer no mechanism for safety enforcement, making them susceptible to adversarial manipulation.”  Using AgentSpec AgentSpec works as a runtime enforcement layer for agents. It intercepts the agent’s behavior while executing tasks and adds safety rules set by humans or generated by prompts. Since AgentSpec is a custom domain-specific language, users must define the safety rules. There are three components to this: the first is the trigger, which lays out when to activate the rule; the second is to check to add conditions; and the third is enforce, which enforces actions to take if the rule is violated.  AgentSpec is built on LangChain, though, as previously stated, the researchers said AgentSpec can also be integrated into other frameworks like AutoGen or the autonomous vehicle software stack Apollo.  These frameworks orchestrate the steps agents need to take by taking in the user input, creating an execution plan, observing the result, and then deciding if the action was completed and, if not, planning the next step. AgentSpec adds rule enforcement into this flow.  “Before an action is executed, AgentSpec evaluates predefined constraints to ensure compliance, modifying the agent’s behavior when necessary. Specifically, AgentSpec hooks into three key decision points: before an action is executed (AgentAction), after an action produces an observation (AgentStep), and when the agent completes its task (AgentFinish). These points provide a structured way to intervene without altering the core logic of the agent,” the paper states.  More reliable agents Approaches like AgentSpec underscore the need for reliable agents for enterprise use. As organizations begin to plan their agentic strategy, tech decision leaders also look at ways to ensure reliability.  For many, agents will eventually autonomously and proactively do tasks for users. The idea of ambient agents, where AI agents and apps continuously run in the background and trigger themselves to execute actions, would require agents that do not stray from their path and accidentally introduce non-safe actions.  If ambient agents are where agentic AI will go in the future, expect more methods like AgentSpec to proliferate as companies seek to make AI agents continuously reliable.  source

Terminology Throughout this report, religious switching refers to a change between the religious group in which a person says they were raised (during their childhood) and their religious identity now (in adulthood). The rates of religious switching are based on responses to two survey questions we asked of adults ages 18 and older: “What is your current religion, if any?” “Thinking about when you were a child, in what religion were you raised, if any?” The responses to these two questions allow us to calculate what percentage of the public has left a religious group (or “switched out”) and what percentage has entered (or “switched in”). This kind of switching can take place without any formal rite or ceremony. We have analyzed switching into and out of five widely recognized, worldwide religions to allow for consistent comparisons around the globe. Specifically, this report analyzes change between the following groups: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, other religions, religiously unaffiliated adults, and those who did not answer the question. For example, someone who was raised Buddhist but now identifies as Christian would be considered as having switched religions – as would someone who was raised Christian but is now unaffiliated. However, switching within a religious tradition, such as between Catholicism and Protestantism, is not captured in this report. (Refer to Pew Research Center’s 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study for an analysis of switching in the United States that does count some switching within Christianity. Read “4 facts about religious switching within Judaism in Israel” for an analysis of switching within Judaism.) Religiously unaffiliated refers to people who answer a question about their current religion (or their upbringing) by saying they are (or were raised as) atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” This category is sometimes called “no religion” or “nones.” Other religions is an umbrella category. It contains a wide variety of religions that are not in the other categories and that have survey sample sizes too small to analyze separately in most countries. This includes Sikhism, Jainism, the Baha’i faith, African traditional religions, Native American religious traditions, and others. Disaffiliation rates refer to the percentage of adults who say they were raised in a religion but are now religiously unaffiliated (or have no religion). Net gains/losses are the differences between the percentage of survey respondents who say they were raised in a particular religious category (as children) and the percentage who identify with that same category at the time of the survey (as adults). The “net” gain or loss takes into account both sides of the equation – those who have left and those who have entered the group. Retention rates show, among all the people who say they were raised in a particular religious group, the percentage who still describe themselves as belonging to that group today. Accession rates (also called entrance rates) show, among all the people who describe themselves as belonging to a particular religious group today, the percentage who were raised in some other group. This section examines religious switching into and out of Buddhism, detailing where Buddhism has had the largest net losses, what percentage of adults who were raised Buddhist are still Buddhist (i.e., retention rates), which religious groups people who left Buddhism have switched into, and where Buddhism has the largest shares of new entrants (i.e., the highest accession rates). Along with Christians and religiously unaffiliated adults, Buddhists have relatively high levels of religious switching. However, of the 36 countries surveyed, just six – including the United States – have sufficient sample sizes to allow analysis of religious switching into and out of Buddhism. Net losses for Buddhism More people have left Buddhism than have joined it in Japan, South Korea and Singapore. Japan has had the largest net losses for Buddhism from religious switching. Remaining Buddhist Sri Lanka and Thailand have the highest Buddhist retention rates, with nearly all people who say they were raised Buddhist in those countries still identifying as Buddhist today. In the U.S. and South Korea, fewer than half of adults who were raised Buddhist remain so. Leaving Buddhism Most of the people who have left Buddhism no longer identify with any religion. In Singapore, South Korea and the U.S., small percentages of those raised Buddhist are now Christian. Entering Buddhism The highest levels of “accession,” or entrance, into Buddhism are in South Korea and the U.S., though Buddhists make up a relatively small portion of the adult populations there (17% and 1%, respectively). A third of South Korean Buddhists and about half of U.S. Buddhists say they were raised in another religion or with no religion. In the U.S., South Korea and Japan, many people who have switched into Buddhism say they were raised as Christians or without any religion. Where has Buddhism experienced the largest net losses from religious switching? In Japan, South Korea and Singapore, significant shares of adults who were raised as Buddhists do not describe themselves that way today. Japan has experienced the largest losses from Buddhism due to religious switching: 26% of all Japanese adults say they were brought up Buddhist in childhood but don’t identify as Buddhist today. However, in Thailand and Sri Lanka – two countries where Buddhists make up a majority of the overall populations – 1% or fewer of adults have either left or entered Buddhism, resulting in negligible change between childhood and current religion due to religious switching. What percentage of people raised Buddhist are still Buddhist? Buddhist retention rates vary widely. In Sri Lanka and Thailand, nearly all adults who were raised Buddhist still identify as Buddhist today (98% each). However, in South Korea, the retention rates are much lower: Just 39% of those raised Buddhist still identify as Buddhist. Which religious groups have former Buddhists switched to? Analyzing retention rates also reveals the religious groups that former Buddhists have joined. In Japan, Singapore, South Korea and the U.S., many people who have left Buddhism say they no longer identify with any religion. For example, 40% of

By Anthony Oncidi and Sehreen Ladak ( March 25, 2025, 6:08 PM EDT) — On the 100th anniversary of the Federal Arbitration Act, it is worth recalling that the law was enacted in 1925 in response to what the U.S. Supreme Court later called, in its 2011 opinion in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, “widespread judicial hostility” to arbitration.[1]… Law360 is on it, so you are, too. A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions. A Law360 subscription includes features such as Daily newsletters Expert analysis Mobile app Advanced search Judge information Real-time alerts 450K+ searchable archived articles And more! Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial. source

Every customer journey can create or destroy value — both for your customers and for your firm. That’s why you need to measure value creation and use these insights to optimize value. At our CX Summit EMEA on June 2–4, 2025, we have two interconnected sessions to help you do that. How To Measure Journeys Effectively will feature insights from Forrester’s journey benchmarking study for three industries: banking, telecommunications, and utilities. How To Optimize Journey Value will teach you how you can optimize value for the customer and the business for each individual journey and in the context of your journey portfolio. This session will also explore how some journeys can kick off a value flywheel by unlocking value, giving you permission and the privilege to play a larger role in a customer’s life. Why Should You Attend? If you want your firm to play a role in customers’ lives and reap the business benefits from that, you need to understand whether journeys create or destroy value for customers currently and how to intervene in journeys. Attend these twin sessions to: See how different brands perform on various customer journeys and which journeys matter most. Learn to use two key lenses to optimize journey value: value proportion and value pattern. Get practical and use Forrester’s checklists to assess journey value for customers and your firm for a journey of your choice. Ready To Unleash A Value Flywheel? Join Us At CX Summit EMEA 2025! My brilliant colleagues, Dr. Maxie Schmidt and Hannah Jachim, and I will be your hosts in those twin sessions on optimizing journey value at CX Summit EMEA from June 2–4, 2025 in London. CX Summit EMEA brings together CX, digital, and marketing leaders to explore the future of customer relationships and learn how to build a total experience — one that aligns brand experience and CX to fuel sustainable growth. Check out the full agenda and register to get the latest on optimizing journey value and take action that truly benefits customers — and your business. source

By Rae Ann Varona ( March 27, 2025, 11:44 PM EDT) — President Donald Trump has pardoned Trevor Milton, the Nikola Corp. founder convicted of fraudulently inflating the electric-truck maker’s value on Wall Street, Milton announced in a late Thursday post on X…. Law360 is on it, so you are, too. A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions. A Law360 subscription includes features such as Daily newsletters Expert analysis Mobile app Advanced search Judge information Real-time alerts 450K+ searchable archived articles And more! Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial. source