Byron Allen wanted to buy Paramount. Now he's buying a controlling stake in BuzzFeed. Paras Griffin/Getty Images Go back in time to 2016: BuzzFeed, Vice Media, and Vox Media are supposed to be the future of media. Now back to present tense: Vice filed for Chapter 11, Vox is breaking up, and BuzzFeed just sold itself for a fraction of its former value. Meanwhile, many of the companies the digital upstarts were supposed to replace — big publishers and TV companies — are still here. In the past, BuzzFeed was the future of media. But in 2026, BuzzFeed looks just about done. In March, the digital publisher told investors it was running out of money and was looking for "strategic options." On Monday, it announced the option it settled on: It will sell a majority stake to media entrepreneur Byron Allen for $120 million. We can talk about the deal, slated to close later this month, in a minute. But first, the requisite big picture: A decade ago, BuzzFeed, along with other digital upstarts like Vice and Vox Media, was the new model for media. The pitch: These guys were digital natives who understood how to make stuff millennials liked, and they understood how to work with big internet platforms — Facebook, in particular — which were growing like a weed. Investors — including big media companies like Comcast, Disney, and Fox — loved the concept, and valued the companies like high-flying tech startups. At one point, Vox was worth $1 billion, BuzzFeed was worth $1.7 billion, and Vice was theoretically worth $5.7 billion. The turn was pretty quick: Facebook turned out to be more of a competitor than a partner, digital advertising turned out to be a very difficult business, and investors lost their taste for the whole sector. All of the former high-flying publishers went through multiple rounds of layoffs, and Vice filed for bankruptcy protection. Vox Media seems close to selling itself off in parts, and James Murdoch's Lupa Systems seems likely to buy Vox's podcast network and its New York magazine title (Disclosure: Vox produces my Channels podcast.) Now BuzzFeed, which spent part of 2024 fending off a hostile takeover from Vivek Ramaswamy, a former Republican presidential candidate, is waving the white flag, too. BuzzFeed was once a digital darling. Bloomberg/Getty Images So why is Byron Allen — a media personality who periodically pops up to announce he wants to buy a giant media property like Paramount, but seldom does — going to buy BuzzFeed? You got me. In the press release announcing the deal, Allen says he wants to "build on the iconic foundation of BuzzFeed and HuffPost by expanding into free-streaming video, audio, and user-generated content" — which is pretty close to what Ramaswamy said he wanted to do a couple of years ago. But Allen also says that "with the power of AI, BuzzFeed is officially chasing YouTube to become another premiere free video streaming service," and that's just not happening. What we can say is that for at least a year, Allen will be programming the CBS late-night slot left empty by Stephen Colbert's departure. So while he doesn't own Paramount, he can at least say he's got some shows on the company's broadcast network, and he owns a digital property that was white hot in 2014. And what about the deal Allen has struck? That one is a little confusing, too. The headline price is $120 million for 52% of the company's shares. But that really means $20 million in cash up front, plus a promise to pay another $100 million, plus interest, in five years. Whether that's a good deal or not may depend on your perspective. Prior to Monday's announcement, BuzzFeed's market cap was less than $30 million — which suggests that Allen is paying 10 times more for BuzzFeed than the market thinks it's worth. In the past, BuzzFeed would claim that it's really worth much more than its stock suggests, because it is weighed down with debt. But that debt is still here, and BuzzFeed's current financial performance is pretty dire: In its most recent quarter, revenue declined 12.4%, to $31.6 million, and its losses increased 21%, to $15.1 million. Couple that with March's going concern note — a flashing red light telling investors there is "substantial doubt" it could last another year — and you should end up with a fire-sale price. Could Allen be right, and BuzzFeed really is worth more than Wall Street thinks? Sure, I guess. Maybe with Allen in charge, BuzzFeed will undergo even more cuts — perhaps cuts Jonah Peretti, the company's founder, was unwilling to make for emotional reasons. Maybe the brand BuzzFeed built up in its earlier incarnation still means something to enough people, and Allen can figure out how to leverage that. We'll see! The only thing we know for sure is that this isn't the future of media that Peretti, and many others, thought we were getting a few years ago. Read the original article on Business Insider

New research is a step closer to individual assessments of cancer risk that can help younger people get life-saving scans or screenings. shironosov/Getty Images A new study on more than 100 risk factors for cancer sheds light on why some people get a diagnosis earlier. Researchers say it could help us develop customized action plans to prevent and diagnose cancer sooner. Helpful habits to stave off cancer include eating more fatty fish and drinking coffee or tea. Cancer screening can feel like a rite of passage as we get older: skin cancer checks in your late 30s, a mammogram at age 40, a colonoscopy at age 45. However, as young cancer cases have skyrocketed, the previous screening guidelines are becoming increasingly too late for patients who develop symptoms in their 20s or early 30s. A more nuanced approach could help calculate each person's unique risk of cancer and find the best ways to prevent it or detect it early enough for treatment, a new study suggests. The lead author of the study, Dr. Neel Butala, is a professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and cofounder of Catch, a cancer risk assessment startup. "Age is like the best thing we have, but it's a crude proxy for cancer risk. There are so many other things going into it," Butala told Business Insider. His research points toward how to personalize cancer prevention and reduce risk by optimizing lifestyle habits like diet and exercise. "Behavior change is hard, but it's not like you need to be a superhuman to do this," Butala said. "There's this positive message that change at any age can actually reduce your cancer risk a fair amount." Understanding cancer risk To better understand why some people get cancer and others don't, Butala and colleagues from Stanford, Harvard, and other universities looked at potential risk factors for 21 of the most common cancers. They created a model to assess cancer risk over a lifetime based on a list of more than 100 factors ranging from drinking habits to medical history to over-the-counter medication and supplement use. A new study looked at 100 risk factors for cancer, ranging from supplement use to drinking habits. Peter Blottman Photography/Getty Images "What's beautiful about the model is that we actually can incorporate all these at once…and then quantify individual risk," Butala said. They found that while cancer risk tends to increase as we get older overall, some people's risk accelerates more quickly based on their lifestyle and health history. For instance, a healthy 70-year-old woman can be less prone to cancer than a high-risk woman in her 40s. The study, published in a paper in JCO Oncology Advances last month, included people from ages 40 to 70, so it doesn't specifically address cancer cases among people in their 20s and 30s. Still, it helps explain why current best practices can miss potential early-onset cancers and could make it easier for people to access life-saving scans, tests, or treatments sooner, Butala said. "It's a good conversation starter for doctors," he said. "If you're on the extreme end of risk, we provide evidence and how you can talk to your doctor about 'Maybe I need a colonoscopy at an earlier age.'" Many patients with early-onset colon cancer, for instance, have said they struggled to get a colonoscopy because medical staff thought they were too young. As a result, some patients aren't diagnosed until later stages, when the cancer has spread and is harder to treat. Butala said that individualized cancer assessments could also help people make healthier lifestyle choices tailored to their specific needs. "The risk reduction, it's like an action plan," Butala said. "Showing people the lifetime impact of their behaviors can actually reduce the risk." Best habits to prevent cancer Butala said a major takeaway of the study is that cancer risk isn't inevitable, and healthier habits can help lower the risk of cancer as we age. "In your 60s, if you modify your behavior, you end up looking like… you're in your 50s," he said. You don't need to overhaul your life or optimize every decision to benefit. To reduce your cancer risk, the research suggests starting with these simple habits: Eat at least two servings of fruit or veggies a day Eat more fatty fish Exercise for about 30 minutes a day Cut back on processed foods, added sugar, and salt Drink coffee or tea daily Stay hydrated Since cancer risk rises as we age, older adults might benefit even more from making changes, according to Butala. "There's no age at which it's too late to start," he said. "Over a lifetime, starting earlier makes more sense, but really the biggest bang for your buck is when you're older." Read the original article on Business Insider

Ilya Sutskever testified at Elon Musk's trial against Sam Altman about power clashes from his time at OpenAI. Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images Ilya Sutskever voted to oust Sam Altman from OpenAI. After doing so, he didn't look at the internet, he testified Monday. Sutskever said he changed his mind and worried OpenAI would collapse without Altman. The chaos that followed Sam Altman's firing was one of the biggest business stories of 2023. Ilya Sutskever, one of the board members who voted to fire Altman, wasn't checking the play-by-play that followed his decision online, he testified on Monday. "Did you pretty much avoid the internet over the weekend?" Sutskever was asked at the trial for Elon Musk's lawsuit against Altman and OpenAI on Monday. "Yes," Sutskever answered. Sutskever is one of the most important early employees at OpenAI. Musk and Altman, who co-founded the artificial intelligence organization, wooed him from Google, where he gave up a $6 million salary. At OpenAI, he saw the chance to create transformative AI technology that could benefit all of humanity. Musk, in his lawsuit, accuses Altman of betraying that promise by effectively turning OpenAI into a for-profit entity through a partnership with Microsoft. In his witness testimony Monday, Sutskever said long-simmering problems with Altman's leadership led him to vote with other board members to remove him. Sutskever had authored a memo making the case for Altman's removal based on what he saw as a consistent pattern of lying and pitting other OpenAI executives against each other, as he told Musk's lawyer Steven Molo in his testimony. Because he was not looking at the internet, Sutskever missed an offer Microsoft sent that Sunday to hire every OpenAI employee, he testified. In the same time period, 95% of OpenAI employees signed a letter threatening to quit if Altman was not reinstated as CEO. Those events led Sutskever to change tack and support Altman's return to OpenAI. "I felt that, had I not done this, the company would be destroyed," Sutskever said in his testimony Monday. Sutskever quit OpenAI soon after Altman's return to the company and now runs a company called Safe Superintelligence Inc. He still owns shares in OpenAI. He testified they could be worth as much as $7 billion. Read the original article on Business Insider

Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, took the stand in Elon Musk's trial against Sam Altman and OpenAI. Manuel Orbegozo/Reuters The Musk v. Altman trial began its third week with testimony by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. Nadella was called by Musk's lawyers — but he could end up helping OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Microsoft. Closing arguments in the Oakland, California, contest between two tech titans could come Thursday. On Monday, the Musk v. Altman trial entered its final stretch, with Elon Musk's side calling its final witnesses — including Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft. The charismatic CEO described the inner workings of the decadelong, multi-billion-dollar partnership between Microsoft and OpenAI. It's a key dynamic in Musk's lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI. According to Musk, Altman joined in "looting" OpenAI by turning a nonprofit meant to benefit humanity into a goliath that made billions through its relationship with the Big Tech company. Nadella's testimony seemed to mostly work against Musk. He showed jurors an email in which Musk thanks Nadella for financial and computing support for OpenAI in 2016. Nadella also told jurors that Musk never complained as Microsoft's lucrative licensing and revenue-sharing partnership with OpenAI grew and grew. After Nadella stepped down from the witness stand, Musk's lawyers called Ilya Sutskever, an OpenAI cofounder who left after a power struggle that led to Altman temporarily stepping down as CEO. Nadella, in his own testimony, had called the event "amateur city." Sutskever wrapped up Musk's side of the case, and Altman's and OpenAI's legal team began presenting their case with OpenAI board chairman Bret Taylor, who repeatedly told jurors that the company remained dedicated to saving humanity. Here are four key takeaways from Nadella's testimony: Satya Nadella in court Karl Mondon / AFP Musk was all in on working with Microsoft Under questioning by a Microsoft lawyer, Nadella made the point that Musk, who had yet to quit OpenAI, had in 2016 welcomed the beginning of the eventual $13 billion Microsoft-OpenAI partnership that Musk is now challenging. Microsoft took a $15 million loss, Nadella told jurors, by letting OpenAI use its Azure cloud system — at a discount — to power the nascent technology behind ChatGPT. Musk personally thanked Nadella, the CEO testified, in an August 2017 email, after an OpenAI bot defeated an elite pro player in the world championship tournament for the game Dota 2. "Very much appreciated," Musk told Nadella in the email, after Nadella congratulated the cofounders on their win. "Will make sure that people know about Microsoft's help." Elon Musk spent hours testifying in his case against OpenAI and Sam Altman. Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images 'We have each others' phone number Musk took another hit at trial when a Microsoft lawyer asked Nadella if Musk ever complained to him about the partnership. Nadella said he heard no complaints — not when the revenue-sharing partnership with OpenAI was announced in July 2019, and not even when news broke in 2023 that Microsoft's investment stake had just risen by $10 billion. And Musk knew how to reach out, Nadella told jurors, noting, "We have each other's phone numbers." The testimony could help OpenAI and Microsoft, which have claimed at trial that Musk only began complaining about the partnership when he filed the 2024 lawsuit at the center of the trial. The defendants in the trial — OpenAI, cofounders Altman and Greg Brockman, and Microsoft — are hoping to convince jurors that Musk, who announced his rival chatbot, xAI, later that year, is just a sore loser who is trying to take down his competitors. Sam Altman attending jury selection on April 30 JOSH EDELSON / AFP via Getty Images 'Above, below, around' Nadella was also asked about a trenchant remark he made to New York magazine in the aftermath of Altman's brief, November 2023 ouster from the helm of OpenAI, an event that threatened OpenAI's existence at the time. "If OpenAI disappeared tomorrow," Nadella told the magazine, "We have all the IP rights and all the capability," he said, referring to Microsoft's intellectual property. "We are below them, above them, around them," Nadella said at the time — a statement quickly hailed as "a baller quote" and "a new war slogan" by some of the Microsoft CEO's Silicon Valley fans. Musk's side may try to use the statement to support his contention that he made a $38 million charitable donation to OpenAI during the company's early years, only to see Altman and cofounder Greg Brockman betray their promise to keep the company solely nonprofit. Microsoft and OpenAI are now "a market-paralyzing gorgon," Musk said in the lawsuit at the center of the trial. But on the stand Monday, Nadella defended his "above, below, around" statement, saying he was trying to calm any concerns over Altman's ouster. "It goes back to me trying to communicate as clearly as possible to customers that they can count on us," Nadella said — meaning that Copilot and other OpenAI products would continue, regardless of the tumult at OpenAI. Scene outside the Oakland federal courthouse in the first week of the trial Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images Altman's firing was 'amateur city' Musk's lawyers have made much of Altman's ouster from OpenAI in November 2023 as a sign of just how untrustworthy he was to lead such an important organization. In Nadella's telling, OpenAI's board members failed to provide an explanation for why they took the "drastic step" of firing its CEO. Nadella came to believe Altman's removal was the result of petty grievances. He called it "amateur city." "I just felt like there must have been some jealousies or communications or what have you," Nadella said. "And this is sort of amateur city, as far as I'm concerned." Nadella said he needed to be the adult in the room and bring OpenAI back to becoming a functioning organization by helping Altman return to leadership. "By the time, I was very worried that the employees were all going to leave en masse, and that would have been bad for OpenAI, and obviously bad for Microsoft." Read the original article on Business Insider

Production-version patches are coming online and should be installed pronto.

Audi made sure to consult American tastes for its first full-size SUV.

Google had urged Apple for years to support RCS texting to make communication between each company's devices more seamless.

Audemars Piguet and Swatch are teaming up this week. Derek White/Getty Images for Audemars Piguet Audemars Piguet and Swatch teased a new watch collaboration called Royal Pop on Saturday. The watch world has erupted with opinions about a luxury brand pairing up with an entry-level label. Some collectors criticized the partnership, fearing it may devalue Audemars Piguet's luxury status. Watch collectors' worlds have collided. Audemars Piguet and Swatch teased a new partnership on Saturday that has watch collectors fired up: some are excited, others have questions, and some really aren't happy about it. The two Swiss brands said they're planning a "disruptive" drop, dubbed Royal Pop, that promises a "new way to wear time" and is geared toward future generations. Some watch enthusiasts vowed to get their hands on the product, despite not knowing whether it would be a wristwatch or another type of timepiece. One TikTok user posted a video of people camping outside a UK shopping center days before the May 16 release. "There is unprecedented hype right now, and the public is genuinely obsessed," WatchGuys CEO Robertino Altieri told Business Insider. "I have not seen this level of cultural interest in a watch release in years." View this post on Instagram A post shared by Swatch (@swatch) Some Audemars Piguet collectors aren't impressed by the partnership, however. Naysayers on social media have said the collaboration cheapens the luxury brand, which typically sells for more than $20,000 compared to the $65 starting price of a Swatch. Some of those critics have threatened to sell their Audemars Piguet watches before the Swatch release. Darryl Granberry, a social media personality known as DDG, was among the dissenting voices. He ranted online about the collaboration, including his frustration that his $200,000 watch could look similar to one in the Swatch collection that costs a lot less. He compared it to buying a Ferrari and finding out there's a "Ferrari Civic for $30k," he said in an X post on Sunday. Others trolled the launch with memes about the newfound accessibility of Audemars Piguet. One joked that Audemars Piguet was partnering with McDonald's on a limited-edition chicken nugget. BREAKING: Audemars Piguet has partnered with McDonald's on a limited-edition chicken nugget. The iconic Swiss watchmaker will bring its legendary precision and 150 years of heritage to create world's most luxurious piece of shaped fried breaded white protein. $499 per nugget. pic.twitter.com/8QjjkyZLVM — Trung Phan (@TrungTPhan) May 10, 2026 "People who have spent six figures on AP feel like the silhouette is being cheapened, and they are the loudest critics online," Altieri said. People are also speculating on the price point, which the companies have not yet revealed. The companies are at opposite ends of the pricing spectrum, which leaves a wide range of options for the Royal Pop drop. Swatch Group and Audemars Piguet didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. For some, though, the Swatch crossover could be the closest they'll get to owning an Audemars Piguet. So far, no official images of the collaboration have been released, but that hasn't stopped the watch world from circulating its own concept photos of colorful wristwatches and pocket watches attached to lanyards. If the two brands decide to take a "bigger swing" and release a design that visually resembles Audemars Piguet's popular Royal Oak model, as some of the concept images have depicted, Altieri expects it to resell for at least $5,000. "That is the version that breaks the internet," Altieri said. Read the original article on Business Insider

OpenAI partnered with a host of big names, including Goldman Sachs, to create a stand-alone company focused on advising businesses on deploying AI. Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via Getty Images OpenAI announced it is creating a new company to consult businesses on building and deploying AI. OpenAI Deployment Company is backed by an initial investment of over $4 billion. The news shows just how far AI model makers will go to stake out turf in the enterprise market. OpenAI is upping its aggressive push into the enterprise market. On Monday, OpenAI announced the creation of stand-alone company, OpenAI Deployment Company, that it said is "designed to help organizations build and deploy AI systems." OpenAI and 19 other companies, including Goldman Sachs, Brookfield, and Bain Capital, partnered to create the new firm. The deployment company will launch with an initial investment of more than $4 billion at a $10 billion pre-money valuation. As part of the announcement, OpenAI said it had acquired Tomoro, an applied AI consulting and engineering firm, which will give the new OpenAI firm a foundation of roughly 150 Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs). Popularized by Palantir, FDEs have become one of the hottest jobs in the AI economy, as big companies push for AI tools specifically tailored to their needs. Here is what AI and tech experts are saying about the new venture. Box CEO Aaron Levie Bloomberg/Getty Images Aaron Levie, CEO of Box Box CEO Aaron Levie said there is a big need for services and forward-deployed engineers right now. "That's an insane amount of technical and domain-specific process work to be done to make this all happen," Levie wrote on X, commenting on OpenAI's announcement. "Huge opportunity for new service providers, as well as internally teams and roles to emerge, to help drive this change." Levie stressed that none of the changes required for businesses to meet the demands of the agentic AI moment "is easy technically." "You need to first modernize your infrastructure and data and make sure it's ready for agents; access controls, entitlements, and permissions need to be mapped in a way that works for agents and people," he wrote, "You need to make sure agents have the right context to work with; you need to consistently eval and maintain the agents when there are model upgrades; and you need to drive the change management of the process itself to figure out which parts the people do and what agents do." The announcement drew the attention of an Nvidia VP. Gina Hsu/Shutterstock Sunny Madra, Vice President of Hardware at Nvidia Sunny Madra, an Nvidia VP, said, "Services and solutions are the key to winning the hearts of enterprises." Yan-David "Yanda" Erlich, General Partner at B Capital Yan-David "Yanda" Erlich, a general partner at B Capital, said "few enterprises" are ready to absorb the advancements in AI models. "The @OpenAI Deployment Company is designed to help close the gap between frontier capability and real-world implementation," Erlich wrote on X. Erlich also touted the firm's role in OpenAI's new venture. (B Capital, which has a strategic partnership with Boston Consulting Group, is a founding partner for the OpenAI Deployment Company.) Dean W. Ball, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation Dean W. Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, openly wondered about what DevCo will mean for the future of robotics. "When robotics becomes 'real' in many novel industrial settings, I wonder if efforts like the one below will morph into the industrial loan companies of the early 20th century; financial products offered to firms to get in on the technologies of the second Industrial Revolution," Ball wrote on X. Carolina Milanesi, tech analyst and President of Creative Solutions Carolina Milanesi, a longtime tech analyst, questioned why Microsoft isn't showing interest in the services space. "Microsoft coined frontier firm but shows no appetite for the services layer that gets companies there," Milanesi wrote on X. "Their biggest AI partner just stepped into that gap. DeployCo, 150 FDEs from Tomoro, McKinsey, Bain and Capgemini on the cap table." Matthew Lam, Strategic Projects Lead at Handshake AI Matthew Lam, strategic projects lead at Handshake AI, homed in on what OpenAI's announcement means for the job market for forward-deployed engineers. "Forward deployed engineers increasing in demand majorly," he wrote on X. Read the original article on Business Insider

The Federal Communications Commission eased some restrictions and pushed back deadlines for foreign router manufacturers, but the ban is still in place.

The offshoot enables the vendor to address the challenges enterprises face when deploying AI technology.

Discussion | Link

FCC extends waiver allowing routers and drones to get patches for two more years.

Can AI save us from the AI industry’s endless thirst for water? Outlook not so good.

IntroductionAcross Sudan, communities depend on groundwater for drinking, irrigation...

Discussion | Link

CNBC: Musk v. Altman: Satya Nadella says Elon Musk never contacted him with concerns that Microsoft's investments in OpenAI violated any special terms or commitments  —  Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella took the stand in the Musk v. Altman trial on Monday, where he testified that Elon Musk never contacted …

Security controls can do only so much. Here are four attacks where your employees are usually your first, and only, line of cyber defense.

<blockquote cite="https://www.jamesshore.com/v2/blog/2026/you-need-ai-that-reduces-your-maintenance-costs"><p>Your AI coding agent, the one you use to write code, needs to reduce your maintenance costs. Not by a little bit, either. You write code twice as quick now? Better hope you’ve halved your maintenance costs. Three times as productive? One third the maintenance costs. Otherwise, you’re screwed. You’re trading a temporary speed boost for permanent indenture. [...]</p> <p>The math only works if the LLM <em>decreases</em> your maintenance costs, and by exactly the inverse of the rate it adds code. If you double your output and your cost of maintaining that output, two times two means you’ve quadrupled your maintenance costs. If you double your output and hold your maintenance costs steady, two times one means you’ve <em>still</em> doubled your maintenance costs.</p></blockquote> <p class="cite">&mdash; <a href="https://www.jamesshore.com/v2/blog/2026/you-need-ai-that-reduces-your-maintenance-costs">James Shore</a>, You Need AI That Reduces Maintenance Costs</p> <p>Tags: <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/coding-agents">coding-agents</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai-assisted-programming">ai-assisted-programming</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/generative-ai">generative-ai</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/agentic-engineering">agentic-engineering</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai">ai</a>, <a href="https://simonwillison.net/tags/llms">llms</a></p>

The compute capability of large GPU fleets presents unprecedented opportunities to innovate and provide value to customers in record time. Yet these... The compute capability of large GPU fleets presents unprecedented opportunities to innovate and provide value to customers in record time. Yet these advancements come with a variety of challenges. At scale, teams are juggling heterogeneous hardware, fast‑moving software stacks, tight power envelopes, and spiky, multitenant workloads. A single hotspot, misconfigured driver, or subtle hardware fault… Source