Discussion | Link

Aditya Kalra / Reuters: Order: India's CCI sets May hearing on penalties after Apple failed to submit info on alleged app market abuse; Apple said it fears it could be fined up to $38B  —  Apple has not submitted data sought by India's antitrust body after an investigation found the U.S. firm abused its dominant position …

Mercedes-Benz, one of the world's most recognizable luxury automotive brands, is...

Discussion | Link

Danny Park / The Block: LayerZero says North Korea's Lazarus is likely behind the $292M Kelp DAO exploit on April 18, which triggered $10B in outflows from Aave over bad debt concerns  —  Quick Take  — LayerZero said North Korean hacker group Lazarus is likely responsible for the $292 million Kelp DAO exploit.

If you want to capture something wolflike, it’s best to embark before dawn. So on a morning this January, with the eastern horizon still pink-hued, I drove with two young scientists into a blanket of fog. Forty miles to the west, the industrial sprawl of Houston spawned a golden glow. Tanner Broussard’s old Toyota Tacoma…

Mint Images/Getty Images Zoom is scaling back paid parental leave, while Deloitte is trimming PTO and other offerings for select workers. Many employers have already slashed perks such as gym discounts to rein in costs. Once a few big employers make a move, "it legitimizes that action for everybody else," said a former Google HR head. Cuts to workplace perks came first. Paid time off may be next. In the latest sign of employers flexing their power, at least two high-profile names are shrinking variations of the highly popular benefit. Zoom this year reduced the number of weeks of paid parental leave it offers, while Deloitte is also planning to do the same — and more — for select groups of workers starting in January. The changes could be an early signal of a broader shift: In a tight labor market, even highly valued benefits may be on the chopping block. Workers have fewer options for job-hopping, and once a few marquee employers make bold moves, others may be inclined to follow. "It legitimizes that action for everybody else," said former Google head of human resources Laszlo Bock, who now advises startup founders. For example, he said this has happened in recent years with the adoption and rollback of DEI policies and the return-to-office push. While Zoom and Deloitte may be outliers today, "they could become precedent-setters," said Bobbi Thomason, professor of applied behavioral science at Pepperdine Graziadio Business School. 'A must-have' At Zoom, birthing parents now get 18 weeks of paid parental leave, down from 22 to 24, and non-birthing parents get 10 weeks, down from 16, a spokesperson for the video-conferencing company confirmed to Business Insider. Deloitte's reduced parental leave benefits will mainly affect workers in support roles, such as administrative services, information technology, and finance. The Big Four consulting firm also plans to pare back or cut annual PTO, a pension plan, and IVF funding for some of those individuals, Business Insider recently reported. The changes are notable given that paid parental leave, vacation time, and disability leave are among the most valued workplace benefits, according to a 2026 MetLife survey of 2,550 full-time US workers. While many employers don't provide any paid parental leave, more than three-quarters of respondents cited paid leave in general as a "must-have," the findings show. Reductions in paid time off are also noteworthy because they tend to disproportionately affect workers with caregiving responsibilities, said Thomason. Zoom declined to comment. A Deloitte spokesperson previously told Business Insider that its US business is updating its talent structure to better reflect employees' diverse skills and the work they do for clients. Lacking leverage Zoom and Deloitte's actions come at a time when many employers have been prioritizing measurable results over loyalty, raising performance expectations, and tracking workers' AI usage. Pandemic-era perks like gym discounts are declining, in-office mandates are widespread, and layoffs continue to pile up. Meanwhile, job growth has been stagnant, and many workers are staying put. The US quit rate edged down to 1.9% in February from 2.0% in January, according to the latest data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What this means is that workers aren't well-positioned to push back against employers paring down core benefits, said Joshua Lavine, CEO of Capitol Benefits, an insurance advisory firm. "They don't have the leverage they did a few years ago," he said. 'Better than layoffs' With workers in a less powerful position, companies may opt to scale back employee benefits to rein in costs, said Josh Bersin, a human resources analyst and consultant. "If they feel that they can improve the profitability of the firm by getting rid of some of these benefits, they will," he said. "It's definitely better than layoffs." Trimming benefits, however, can backfire on employers—even if workers are unlikely to quit in droves due to the tight labor market, said Christopher Myers, director of the Center for Innovative Leadership at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School. They could respond instead by putting less effort into their jobs, which could dent productivity, he said. In 2025, global employee engagement declined for a second year to its lowest level since 2020, according to a newly released Gallup study. If the pendulum swings back in workers' favor, companies could face a tougher time retaining top talent, and their reputations could take a hit, Myers added. Benefits "will be a question mark for workers thinking about joining one company versus another," he said. Read the original article on Business Insider

AI-powered personas are becoming so realistic that they can infiltrate online communities and subtly steer public opinion. Unlike traditional bots, they adapt, coordinate, and refine their messaging at a massive scale, creating a false sense of consensus. Early warning signs—like deepfakes and fake news networks—have already appeared in global elections. Researchers warn that the next election could be the true test of this technology’s power.

Jason Belmonte holds 32 professional bowling titles. Courtesy of Jason Belmonte Jason Belmonte, known as Belmo, holds 32 professional bowling titles. He taught himself to bowl in small-town Australia, at his parents' bowling center. Tournament winnings, sponsorship deals, and branded products have made him a millionaire. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jason Belmonte. It has been edited for length and clarity. My career in professional bowling began before I was born, on a rainy day with some bored relatives. My parents had family visiting the small town where we all still live. It was the mid-80s, and bowling was just becoming a thing in bigger cities like Sydney. It was pouring rain during the visit, so the visitors asked if our town had a bowling alley. We didn't, and my parents had never been bowling, but as the visitor explained the game, they thought it sounded like a great business idea. They put all their savings behind it, then asked my paternal grandparents to do the same. The bowling center opened right around the time I was born. My parents and grandparents worked every shift, so naturally, I was there too. Once I was old enough to walk, the bowling ball became my babysitter. My parents would set me up with a lane, and — according to family stories — I would only stop for lunch and a nap. That's where I developed my unique two-handed bowling approach. I was so small that I needed both hands to throw the ball. I won a $16,000 bonus when I was 16 By the time I was 16, I was on my state's youth team. At an event, two other boys on the team mentioned they were going to competitions in Singapore and Malaysia. I had no idea there were tournaments outside my little area, but when they asked me to join them, I did. During that first trip, I bowled a perfect game. That came with a $16,000 bonus prize. On the flight home, I realized that I had just made more than I could make working at my parents' bowling alley or my other job, Blockbuster Video. Bowling could be my career. I started buying round-the-world economy tickets for about $2,000, and used that to get to four or more different competitions in Asia and Europe. It was expensive, but if I won — which I often did — I could come home with $30,000 in prize money. On my most lucrative trip, I won $100,000 in a four-week period. Competing professionally is the best rush I was making lots of money and enjoying the amateur circuit. But the Professional Bowlers' Association, based in the US, was like Mount Everest to me. I was a big fish in a small pond, but PBA tournaments were the ocean. When the PBA commissioner reached out to invite me to two tournaments, I had to say yes. I was beaten, badly. But the commissioner convinced me I had the skills; I just needed more experience. I stuck with it and won my 8th tournament. Since then, I've won 32 PBA titles. Jason Belmonte first made $16,000 with bowling. Courtesy of PBA Even after 18 years, nothing can give me the same rush as competing in the PBA. Going pro allowed me to make more money (from winnings and sponsorships) and stop chasing tournaments around the world. At the time, my wife and I were ready to start a family, and today we have four kids, so time at home is important. I'm thinking about what comes after my bowling career I sometimes think about the Butterfly Effect in my life. If my relatives hadn't visited on a rainy weekend and planted the idea of starting a bowling center, would I still be a professional bowler? I don't know, but I'm incredibly grateful that they asked a simple question. Bowling has made me a millionaire and changed my family's lives. My grandparents — who immigrated to Australia with nothing — were able to experience the abundance they had never known before, thanks to the bowling center's success. The legacy isn't just financial. When I walk around my town, everyone speaks so highly of my mom and dad, and the impact they've had on the community. That's the legacy I want to have for the bowling community: not only to be a great bowler, but to leave the sport better overall. My parents eventually owned three bowling centers. They've since sold two, because they're ready to retire. They don't want to sell the original center to anyone but me. I don't want them to either — yet I'm still so fueled by competition. That's led to some touchy conversations lately. I've signed contracts for the next three years, but after that, it's time to think very seriously about what comes next. Read the original article on Business Insider

Discussion | Link

Global oil and jet fuel prices have spiked since February amid the ongoing war. Mario Tama/Getty Images Oil prices surged on Monday after peace talks between the US and Iran stalled. President Trump said the negotiations would resume, but Iran said it would not participate. Brent and West Texas intermediate crude jumped more than 6% in early trading. Oil prices have jumped again after a second round of peace talks between the US and Iran appeared to be on the verge of collapse before they even began. After surging even higher overnight, Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude futures were trading about 6% and 5% higher each as of 5:10 a.m. ET, at around $95 and $87.50, respectively. Tensions continue to run high with President Donald Trump revealing on Sunday that a US Navy destroyer had attacked and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship that tried to pass a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. "The Iranian crew refused to listen, so our Navy ship stopped them right in their tracks by blowing a hole in the engineroom," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Right now, U.S. Marines have custody of the vessel. The TOUSKA is under U.S. Treasury Sanctions because of their prior history of illegal activity. We have full custody of the ship, and are seeing what's on board!" Oil costs have skyrocketed worldwide since the US and Israel attacked Iran in late February. Iran retaliated by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway that connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean and serves as a key shipping channel for oil and liquefied natural gas. Crude prices had moderated in recent weeks, falling more than 20% from highs through Friday on renewed optimism for a peace deal. But the continued closure of the strait has forced several countries to enact energy-saving tactics as prices remain high. The Philippines, for example, implemented a four-day workweek for government employees. In the US, the national average price for a gallon of regular gas surpassed $4 in March, the first time that's happened since August 2022. Additionally, rising jet fuel costs have forced some airlines to cancel flights and increase customer fees. Heightened tensions and a fragile ceasefire have contributed to volatile trading. President Donald Trump said peace talks between the US and Iran would resume after a tense weekend. Iran fired on ships a day after the US president announced the Strait of Hormuz was open. "My Representatives are going to Islamabad, Pakistan — They will be there tomorrow evening, for Negotiations," Trump wrote in a Truth Social Post on Sunday. "We're offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it, because if they don't, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran." However, Iran said hours later that it would not participate in the second round of negotiations with the US. "Iran stated that its absence from the second round of talks stems from what it called Washington's excessive demands, unrealistic expectations, constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and the ongoing naval blockade, which it considers a breach of the ceasefire," IRNA, the country's official news agency, posted in an X post on Sunday. Monday's meeting would have been the second time the US and Iran have met for negotiations in Islamabad amid the current conflict. Vice President JD Vance participated in peace talks earlier this month, though they ultimately failed after 21 hours. The heightened tensions come amid a two-week ceasefire deal between the US and Iran. In response to the failed negotiations, Trump said on April 12 that the US Navy would impose a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz "effective immediately." Iran agreed not to attack ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz on Friday as part of the ceasefire deal that extended to Lebanon, but it reversed course the next day and closed it again over the US blockade of its ports. Read the original article on Business Insider

Who is Danny/Shutterstock.com Imagine you have just been diagnosed with early-stage cancer and, before your next appointment, you type a question into an AI chatbot: “Which alternative clinics can successfully treat cancer?” Within seconds you get a polished, footnoted answer that reads like it was written by a doctor. Except some of the claims are unfounded, the footnotes lead nowhere, and the chatbot never once suggests that the question itself might be the wrong one to ask. That scenario is not hypothetical. It is, roughly speaking, what a team of seven researchers found when they put five of the world’s most popular chatbots through a systematic health-information stress test. The results are published in BMJ Open. The chatbots, ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Meta AI and DeepSeek, were each asked 50 health and medical questions spanning cancer, vaccines, stem cells, nutrition and athletic performance. Two experts independently rated every answer. They found that nearly 20% of the answers were highly problematic, half were problematic, and 30% were somewhat problematic. None of the chatbots reliably produced fully accurate reference lists, and only two out of 250 questions were outright refused to be answered. Overall, the five chatbots performed roughly the same. Grok was the worst performer, with 58% of its responses flagged as problematic, ahead of ChatGTP at 52% and Meta AI at 50% Performance varied by topic, though. Chatbots handled vaccines and cancer best – fields with large, well-structured bodies of research – yet still produced problematic answers roughly a quarter of the time. They stumbled most on nutrition and athletic performance, domains awash with conflicting advice online and where rigorous evidence is thinner on the ground. Open-ended questions were where things really went sideways: 32% of those answers were rated highly problematic, compared with just 7% for closed ones. That distinction matters because most real-world health queries are open ended. People do not ask chatbots neat true-or-false questions. They ask things like: “Which supplements are best for overall health?” This is the kind of prompt that invites a fluent and confident yet potentially harmful answer. When the researchers asked each chatbot for ten scientific references, the median (the middle value) completeness score was just 40%. No chatbot managed a single fully accurate reference list across 25 attempts. Errors ranged from wrong authors and broken links to entirely fabricated papers. This is a particular hazard because references look like proof. A lay reader who sees a neatly formatted citation list has little reason to doubt the content above it. How reliable is it? Troyan/Shutterstock.com Why chatbots get things wrong There’s a simple reason why chatbots get medical answers wrong. Language models do not know things. They predict the most statistically likely next word based on their training data and context. They do not weigh evidence or make value judgments. Their training material includes peer-reviewed papers, but also Reddit threads, wellness blogs and social-media arguments. The researchers did not ask neutral questions. They deliberately crafted prompts designed to push chatbots toward giving misleading answers – a standard stress-testing technique in AI safety research known as “red teaming”. This means the error rates probably overstate what you would encounter with more neutral phrasing. The study also tested the free versions of each model available in February 2025. Paid tiers and newer releases may perform better. Still, most people use these free versions, and most health questions are not carefully worded. The study’s conditions, if anything, reflect how people actually use these tools. The article’s findings do not exist in isolation; they land amid a growing body of evidence painting a consistent picture. A February 2026 study in Nature Medicine showed something surprising. The chatbots themselves could get the right medical answer almost 95% of the time. But when real people used those same chatbots, they only got the right answer less than 35% of the time – no better than people who didn’t use them at all. In simple terms, the issue isn’t just whether the chatbot gives the right answer. It’s whether everyday users can understand and use that answer correctly. A recent study published in Jama Network Open tested 21 leading AI models. The researchers asked them to work out possible medical diagnoses. When the models were given only basic details – like a patient’s age, sex and symptoms – they struggled, failing to suggest the right set of possible conditions more than 80% of the time. Once the researchers fed in exam findings and lab results, accuracy soared above 90%. Meanwhile, another US study, published in Nature Communications Medicine, found that chatbots readily repeated and even elaborated on made-up medical terms slipped into prompts. Taken together, these studies suggest the weaknesses found in the BMJ Open study are not quirks of one experimental method but reflect something more fundamental about where the technology stands today. These chatbots are not going away, nor should they. They can summarise complex topics, help prepare questions for a doctor, and serve as a starting point for research. But the study makes a clear case that they should not be treated as stand-alone medical authorities. If you do use one of these chatbots for medical advice, verify any health claim it makes, treat its references as suggestions to check rather than fact, and notice when a response sounds confident but offers no disclaimers. Carsten Eickhoff is a co-founder and shareholder of x-cardiac GmbH and receives funding from the DFG, NIH, NDI, BMFTR, Böhringer Ingelheim, and Carl Zeiss Foundation.

AnVr/Getty Images Private credit's push into retail investors created hundreds of jobs selling to broker-dealers. Now, with redemptions rising, those workers have to play defense, trying to calm investors. One former wholesaler said that he's had old clients reach out to him, years after he changed jobs. The private credit boom created a lucrative job on Wall Street: selling the asset class to wealthy individuals hungry for returns. Now, as redemption requests climb and concerns about credit quality spread, the sales, fundraising, and business development professionals who helped fuel that growth are facing a new reality. They're focused less on bringing new money in and more about keeping it from flowing out. The job of serving as the connective tissue between private capital firms and the financial advisors who sell their products is now among the most stressful in finance. Used to playing offense, they're now on the defensive. This shift could change how they work and how they're paid, and how firms are thinking about new hires. After years of rapid growth, concerns over credit quality and heightened exposure to challenged software assets have driven record-high investor redemption requests at some of the biggest funds, including Blackstone, Blue Owl, Ares, and Apollo. And while there are still inflows into these funds, they're not enough to replace outflows. "They've been put into a position where they're forced to play defense, and that's not necessarily a position where a lot of our candidates want to be," Jessica Xu, head of investor relations recruitment at recruiter Selby Jennings, told Business Insider. These workers need to work "considerably harder" in current market conditions, said Xu, with only a hope of "defending" their firm's assets under management. Not only is it a lot of work, but it can also mean substantially reduced pay, as many of these workers receive a large portion of their pay based on their own and the firm's fundraising record. Anxious clients Investors have so many questions that they're now reaching out to their old salespeople for advice, according to one former wholesaler at a major private credit firm who now works in private wealth. "I have fielded a few handfuls of calls in the last week from old advisors I used to sell to, asking me what I think," the former wholesaler said in early April. This comes after a sustained hiring boom at the intersection of private wealth and credit. These roles reached an all-time high of 585 moves in 2025, according to data from recruiting firm Jensen Partners. Most notably, the hiring didn't experience a typical fourth-quarter drop-off (unlike all other roles Jensen tracked), even as concern about private credit began to mount in the fall. One of the main candidate profiles for these roles is those that have worked in distribution at traditional asset managers. Unlike working at a traditional asset manager, with a wide range of potential strategies to sell, wholesalers at these private market firms have, at best, a few options to sell to wealth advisors and their investors. "You're stuck saying, 'Buy more please,'" the former wholesaler said. "There really is no place to defend." The ex-wholesaler said he has had former colleagues leave private credit due to redemption limits. Commission on sales is based on gross, not net sales, meaning there's no incentive to focus on keeping clients in funds. "It's been a busy couple of weeks for people managing private credit LP relationships," said Lisa Steele, a partner at recruiting firm Braddock Matthews Barrett who focuses on roles fundraising from limited partners, whether large institutions or retail investors. While Steele said she's not seeing many examples of people saying, "I need to get out of here," others have. "Normally, if you worked at one of these top alternative investment firms that's in the headlines, you'd make a move to a similar company," said Xu, explaining that they're now more willing to look at smaller firms that aren't traditional lateral moves. More selective hiring The redemption squeeze has led some industry executives to question whether private wealth channels have had the same understanding of the market as institutional investors. "What's happened is as the asset class has grown, as an industry we could have done a better job of making individual investors truly understand there will be times where redemptions are low and you can move in and out all of your capital," Doug Ostrover, co-CEO of Blue Owl, said last month. "But there will be times like today where you're only going to get a fraction out." In a message shared with Business Insider, Ostrover added additional context, saying that investors receive clear disclosure of the 5% liquidity feature before investing. He added the industry will "continue to educate the broader marketplace as to the features of these funds." Ensuring that retail investors and their advisors have the right intel is likely to drive continued demand for roles such as product specialists who answer clients' questions and concerns and put them in an economic context. "You need to be someone who can engage proactively and commercially with a firm's CIO, as well as work with financial advisors who might be newer to the strategy," said Steele. These employees can speak like an investor, and have even attracted applicants from traditional investment roles, said Adam Loughran, senior vice president at Selby Jennings. "I'm finding more and more funds having an interest in hiring someone with an investing underwriting background into those product specialist seats because they can speak about their investment strategies to their investors in a very technical and articulate manner," Loughran said. Another thing on the wish list? Staffers who lived through prior economic meltdowns, so they can use their own experience to reassure clients. "I get worried about people who haven't lived through the GFC calling me," said Mike Serio, CIO at Trilogy Financial, a wealth management team with over $4 billion in AUM. "I have heard this from a number of people: I want old souls managing my private credit," Serio said. Read the original article on Business Insider

Jake Castillo cofounded Cal AI in 2024. Courtesy of Jake Castillo Cal AI was acquired by MyFitnessPal less than two years after its launch. Cofounder Jake Castillo said their execution speed became the biggest moat against competitors. They focused on influencer marketing as their main marketing strategy when scaling the startup. This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jake Castillo, the 31-year-old CMO and cofounder of Cal AI, based in Los Angeles. Cal AI is an AI-native app co-founded by a tiny team of Castillo and three others. The lean team quickly scaled to millions in monthly revenue, leading to its acquisition by MyFitnessPal less than two years after launch. His words have been edited for length and clarity. Imagine holding your breath for two years, and then finally exhaling. That's how I felt when the app I cofounded in 2024 was acquired by MyFitnessPal at the end of last year. Cal AI, our AI calorie tracking app, launched at the end of April 2024, and I joined as one of the cofounders at the beginning of May. There were four of us on the founding team, and in the early days, we wanted to succeed more than we wanted to breathe. In the AI era, anyone can build a product, so our execution speed became everything to us. We didn't need millions of dollars to grow a business that makes millions; we just needed to be very scrappy and trust our instincts. That took us a long way. Business Insider wants to talk to founders of AI-powered companies and teams with fewer than 10 workers, and employees working alongside AI agents and bots, to understand what the "Tiny Teams" era really feels like — the wins, the fears, and the human skills that stand out. Share your story by filling out this quick form. Influencer marketing was our fastest path to growth We decided to work with health and fitness influencers on social media as our main marketing strategy since that was an immediate distribution channel. They were already creating videos on what they eat in a day, how to lose weight, and low-calorie snack-type content. It made for a super-easy integration by showing how CalAI was used in those videos and guaranteed us immediate views. Influencers get free access to the app. Early on, we didn't operate off a fixed budget. Instead, we reinvested aggressively into influencer deals as we saw them working. If we had $1,000 available and a strong opportunity, we'd allocate it there. We prioritized putting capital into channels that were directly driving growth. We also tried using non-influencer user-generated content, which is people posting about our app without having an existing audience. We had to rely on the algorithm to get views, so we quickly moved away from focusing on that strategy. Once we realized the influencer strategy we were implementing worked well for this product and we were seeing growth, we trusted our guts and doubled down. We went from one influencer to onboarding 20 a week At the start, we had one influencer partnership, then three. Then once we saw the direct effect it was having on our business, we set out a goal to sign 10 a week, which doesn't sound like much, but it was crazy. I was on the phone all day, every day, and soon we started to reach our goal of 10 influencers a week. At this point, we have over 160 influencers signed, but that number fluctuates every day. Speed is our biggest advantage in the AI era I've heard people say the only differentiator between your product and other apps now is taste. I actually disagree with that. I think AI can do a lot of the taste-making for you. I really believe the only moat we can create is speed. AI can increasingly guide what to build, what to cut, and even how things should look. Which is why we believe speed is the more durable advantage: how quickly you can ship, learn, and iterate. We tried not to take any payouts for the first year because we wanted to invest everything back into the business. This allowed us to hire more influencers and keep moving quickly on our marketing strategy to get ahead of the competition. If similar apps are always chasing us, our strategies, and our features, they will keep chasing us if we keep our pace. I think it just comes down to that. Trust your instincts because the simplest strategy is usually the best one A lot of times, people try to overcomplicate things, and often, the simplest solution or strategy is the best and fastest approach. Whenever a new idea comes up, we always think about what it's going to complicate. We think about this on both the marketing and product side, and if the answer is yes, it would complicate things; we would usually not pursue it. A lot of our decision-making comes down to trusting our gut and intuition, too. That's one thing I definitely want to shout out my cofounder, Zach, for. He's so confident in his gut. If he's got a hunch, he's like, "Yeah, let's run with it." We've scaled our team but have kept the same lean mindset The team is larger now after the acquisition, but we still don't want to get unnecessarily bloated, and we try to keep our management structure pretty flat and super high agency. We want everyone to feel like they can be a decision-maker and have an impact, and that there's no bureaucracy to navigate to get things done. The second too much bureaucracy enters, we're going to slow down, and if speed is our only moat, slowing down is not an option. Some of our first hires are now in leadership positions, which has been great. I no longer have to wear all the hats of the accountant, the legal representative, the marketer, and the COO. We now get to delegate those roles and responsibilities. The MyFitnessPal acquisition taught me to always keep the door open The MyFitnessPal acquisition talks started a while ago, and continued off and on until around the end of last year, when it really started to pick up steam. We agreed to terms, completed due diligence, and ultimately closed the deal in December of last year, which was surreal. Even if a conversation doesn't seem like it's going anywhere, you should always leave the door open — you never know how it might evolve. If we had closed that door with MyFitnessPal when the deal made less sense, we might have missed out on this opportunity, but we kept it open. Do you have a similar story to share? Contact this reporter, Agnes Applegate, at aapplegate@businessinsider.com. Read the original article on Business Insider

Carrie Charles is the CEO of Broadstaff, a recruiting and staffing agency. Carrie Charles Carrie Charles, CEO of Broadstaff, highlights data centers as a growth area for tech workers. Data center technician jobs are increasing, offering hands-on work with evolving technology. Demand for skilled electricians in data centers could lead to high salaries and large opportunities. A talent CEO says all the recently laid-off tech workers wading through corporate America's sluggish job market should look to one growing area: data centers. Carrie Charles is the CEO and cofounder of Broadstaff, a staffing and recruiting firm that works with companies like Oracle and Verizon. She says that with Big Tech's AI infrastructure buildout underway across the country, Broadstaff's business is booming. Aside from all the construction workers needed to build data centers, Charles says she constantly fields staffing inquiries for skilled electricians and technicians to install and maintain the physical hardware inside the facilities. "Our phone has never rang so much in our 10 years as a staffing company," Charles said. "The space is on fire right now — it's wild." Charles sees a disconnect between the demand for data center talent and the thousands of laid-off desk workers struggling to find a new 9-to-5 office job. Data center job listings increased by 64% between 2023 and 2025, Deloitte found. Industry leaders also say job openings outpace recruitment. A survey from industry organization Uptime Institute found that 54% of data center executives reported talent acquisition as their main hurdle. "Young people — people in their 40s — getting laid off is all over the media, and it's this massive shock," Charles said. "But there's a massive opportunity over here." Data centers offer a limited number of permanent jobs per facility. Still, Charles said the market is expanding as more large data centers pop up across the country. Employment at data centers in the US increased by over 60% from 2016 to 2023, according to the US Census Bureau. Working as a data center technician could be a good fit for someone who likes being hands-on but isn't ready to fully let go of the corporate world. "It's almost like a white-collar trade job," Charles said. "It's a technical role, but you're not sitting all day long." Data center technician jobs are growing A data center technician does on-site tech support and hardware maintenance. The job can be physically demanding, Charles said, and sometimes it involves moving between sites if you work for a company with multiple data centers in a region. As data center technology evolves rapidly, more companies are launching their own training programs for entry-level workers. For instance, the Uptime Institute offers a data center certification program that takes five days to complete. "It all comes down to positioning," Charles said. "You're bringing skills like operations, troubleshooting, reliability, or even customer experience." Advanced technicians can make $80,000 to $100,000 Technicians are "not going to immediately start making six figures," and entry-level data center technicians can make between $45,000 and $65,000 a year, Charles said. While having a background in IT or completing certification programs can be helpful in landing a job, employers mostly look for a "can-do" and "no task too small" mindset in entry-level employees, she added. "You might be working from 7:00 p.m to 7:00 a.m.," Charles said. "They want to make sure you're the kind of person who will do the job and stay in the role." Technicians can move up relatively quickly to more advanced technician or facilities management roles. "With a few basic certifications and a willingness to work shifts, you can ramp quickly," Charles said. "In most cases, you are back to that $80,000 to $100,000 a year range within 18 to 24 months." Specialized electricians can make $200,000 to $300,000 If you have a higher risk tolerance, Charles recommends becoming a licensed electrician and seeking out apprenticeships with data center specialists. For instance, Broadstaff works with Wachter, a national electrical contractor that works with large data centers and offers apprenticeship programs. Although becoming a licensed electrician can require four to five years of trade school and multiple apprenticeships, it's a path that can yield a larger payout in the long run. Senior electricians can easily make over six figures, Charles said, and those with specialized knowledge of data center technology, such as liquid cooling and fiber cabling, can make between $200,000 and $300,000 a year. Electricians are expected to be in high demand over the next decade. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 81,000 job openings for electricians annually through 2034. BLS says the job outlook for electricians is growing "much faster" than most other occupations. Gen Z is already on board with blue-collar trade work. Charles says it's time for everyone else to catch up and start viewing blue-collar jobs as viable careers. Going to law school in your 30s or 40s is a similar commitment to becoming certified as an electrician, Charles said. Both require years of training from the ground up and come with short-term financial setbacks — and high long-term salary potential. "It's hard, and there's an element of risk," Charles said. "But the opportunities are massive. You have to take a step back to take a step forward." Read the original article on Business Insider

PLUS: Run your own free coding agent on your laptop

Tech workers in China are being instructed by their bosses to train AI agents to replace them—and it’s prompting a wave of soul-searching among otherwise enthusiastic early adopters.  Earlier this month a GitHub project called Colleague Skill, which claimed workers could use it to “distill” their colleagues’ skills and personality traits and replicate them with…

Discussion | Link

Edward Berthelot/Getty Images; Tyler Le/BI The thing about corporate turnarounds is that they take a minute and then some. In the case of Nike, it's and then some … and then some more. Hopefully. A company's stock price doesn't tell the whole story, but it does tell a lot of it, and the story it tells for Nike is bleak. Shares of the sportswear juggernaut have plunged 70% from their November 2021 peak, and are down 30% this year alone. Under the leadership of CEO Elliott Hill, a Nike veteran brought back in to lead the company in 2024, Nike has undertaken efforts to bring the company back to life. It's going back to sports-focused basics, repairing relationships with partners it scorned, and refocusing on innovating its actual products instead of innovating its website. The strategy does show signs of working, but it's slow going, and there are a lot of problems to address. "If you're 10 years old and you break your leg, you heal in a month," says Sam Poser, an equity analyst at Williams Trading. "If you're 40 years old and you break your leg, and it usually happens in a split second, it takes a much longer time before you can walk without a limp." And the 62-year-old Nike's proverbial leg is broken in multiple places. Heading into the pandemic, things were good for Nike — sales were strong, it was growing at a double-digit clip in China, its risky decision to stick by and advertise with former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick paid off. Even after the pandemic hit, the company was chugging along, at least on the surface. Many people point to John Donahoe, who took over as Nike's CEO in January 2020, as the main source of Nike's current woes. The eBay veteran came in with some "very specific ideas," says Matt Powell, founder of the consultancy Spurwink River, and "frankly, most of them didn't work." In their heyday, Nike was always arguably one of the best grassroots marketing companies out there. Nike had already been pushing to grow its e-commerce business and direct-to-consumer channels, and under Donahoe's watch, that push became a shove. Nike pivoted aggressively to selling through its own digital and physical stores and cut ties or severely reduced its partnerships with wholesalers such as Foot Locker, DSW, and Macy's. The hope was that cutting out the middlemen would increase profits, give Nike more control over the consumer experience, and allow it to get first dibs on valuable customer data. Former CEO John Donahoe pulled back on Nike's deals with retailers like Foot Locker. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Brandon Bell/Getty Images The move backfired. The company spent decades building out a strong ground game in partner stores, which the new strategy quickly undermined. By leaving physical locations, Nike opened up shelf space for younger, hungrier competitors such as On and Hoka, as well as older rivals like New Balance. "In their heyday, Nike was always arguably one of the best grassroots marketing companies out there," Poser says. The effects of the pandemic initially papered over Nike's DTC missteps. People sitting at home, shopping with extra cash to spend, bought up a lot of sporting goods, equipment, and shoes. It was also a strong period for the collectors market, where Nike thrives. (The pandemic, of course, caused other problems for Nike, especially around supply chains.) But as the stay-at-home boom wore off, the drawbacks of Nike's new sales tactics became apparent. Leaning into DTC wasn't Nike's only oops. While it was revamping its e-commerce operations, the company lost sight of a core part of its business: developing cool new products. There were consequences to worrying about where its merchandise was selling instead of what it was selling. Nike lost sight of a core part of its business: making cool, new products. PAUL RATJE/AFP via Getty Images "It's almost embarrassing that Nike would be getting hit this hard by companies like Hoka and On that have R&D budgets that are a fraction of the size of Nike," says David Swartz, a senior equity analyst at Morningstar. Consumers are open to trying new footwear, especially if there's not much new or exciting from the brand they already know. While Nike was flailing, both Hoka and On were innovating on their running shoes, specifically on their soles and cushioning, and moving into the mainstream. Some people, Swartz says, say Nike's latest sales-driving running technology — Flyknit — came out years ago. There's an art and a science to all of this and in this case, the scientists failed. Nike began stuffing the market with its most popular shoes — Air Force 1s, Air Jordan 1s, Dunks — leading to oversaturation and, in turn, excess inventory and a decline in brand cachet. Part of what creates a sense of desire and urgency around those items is that they're relatively hard to get. At the same time that the product line was getting stale, Nike replaced older, more expensive employees with younger, cheaper employees, losing an important chunk of institutional knowledge. "There's an art and a science to all of this," Poser says, "and in this case, the scientists failed." Amid declining sales and lost market share, Nike brought in Hill, a Nike vet who'd retired, to replace Donahoe as CEO in the fall of 2024. In an earnings call in December of that year, Hill said his "irrational love" for the company had brought him back and that his "singular focus" was to help the company "get back to winning." He subsequently introduced a turnaround plan, dubbed "Win Now," hinging on refocusing on sports, rebuilding wholesale relationships, reorganizing leadership, and pulling back on promotions. "He's the right guy, and he's doing all of the right things," Powell says, "but the issues are so deep, so systemic that it's taking longer than people wanted it to take to get things recovered." New CEO Elliott Hill's turnaround plan is starting to show signs of success. Francesca Volpi/Bloomberg via Getty Images Nike is making inroads with retail partners it recently rejected, but that takes time and is a two-way street. The same goes for reestablishing its authority as a sportswear brand rather than a lifestyle brand. It reorganized internal teams by sport rather than the more general men's, women's, and kids model, and moved to get billions of dollars' worth of flooded merchandise out of the marketplace. Nike does nearly $50 billion in sales a year, which makes any change in tack more difficult — it's harder to turn a tanker than a speed boat. Adding to the complications are President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have been eating into its margins. Hence, where Nike is now. Nike shares plunged at the end of March in the wake of its latest earnings report. While it reported sales growth in North America, it saw a decline in China, and the overall outlook was dark: Nike expects revenues in the current quarter to be down by 2-4% and anticipates an eye-popping 20% decline in China. "This is complex work, and parts of it are taking longer than I'd like," Hill said on the earnings call with analysts. Nike's newer offerings are getting back to the things that made them cool. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images Behind the scenes, Hill's tone has reportedly been sharper. At a recent all-hands meeting obtained by Bloomberg, he told staff he's "so tired," just like them, "of talking about fixing this business." He said he wants to "move to inspiring and driving growth and having fun." Much as the pandemic papered over some of Nike's setbacks, concerns about China and the slow pace of progress are overshadowing its wins. "A year ago, no one would have believed Nike could grow sales in North America. A year ago, everyone was talking about how Nike was losing on running and how that was such a big deal," says Simeon Siegel, senior managing director at Guggenheim Partners. Now that things are improving in those arenas, critics are dismissing those bright spots. "People are saying Nike North America's growth isn't real because it's wholesale," Siegel says. "And they're saying Nike winning in running doesn't matter because who cares about running?" Even when Nike's losing, they're winning. Nike's Air Force 1s and Jordan shoes are in a more stabilized phase, while the Dunks are still lagging, a company spokesperson told me. The next sport Nike's looking to is global football — as in soccer — with the World Cup. The spokesperson pointed to Nike Mind (futuristic-looking neuroscience-based shoes), a collaboration with Kim Kardashian's brand to create NikeSKIMS, and the company's all-conditions gear as notable spots of innovation and optimism. However, they also emphasized that these developments take time: product timelines, from ideation to creation, are 12-18 months. Ultimately, Nike has its issues, but it's still the leading shoe company in the US by a mile. "Even when Nike's losing, they're winning," Siegel says. Nike is struggling in China as consumers favor homegrown competitors like Anta. Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images That being said, one place Nike really isn't winning is China. As some Chinese consumers have taken a nationalist turn, Nike has lost ground to domestic brands such as Anta and Li-Ning. China's economic slowdown and high youth unemployment have also hurt sales and nudged consumers toward more wallet-friendly names. Excess product is also an issue. In the US, for example, it's fairly easy for Nike to quietly move inventory through discount channels such as T.J. Maxx and its own outlets, but in China, most promotional activity happens online, so they go about it more slowly. "What has happened — and in fact is apparently still not fixed — is these franchisees were just stuffed with inventory, older inventory, which they have struggled to sell through even at large discounts. This has delayed Nike's plans in China because they can't put a lot of new products into the stores," Swartz says. Nike is trying to adjust accordingly, including reducing inventory in China to increase full-price demand, but it's not happening overnight. Swartz says it's not clear what the timetable is for Nike's China operations to improve, and "there's a lot of concern that it's never going to get better," or at least won't be the "standout market" it was before. Nike isn't a dying giant, but it is limping along, and recovery is taking longer than expected. Its largest market — North America — is growing. It's innovating again. Its overall results are still not stellar, nor are its immediate expectations. External headwinds, from tariffs to rising oil prices, add extra levels of uncertainty. But it's not time to throw in the towel on Hill or his efforts yet. "There's enough signs of light," Poser says. Across-the-board double-digit growth may not be in the cards in the near future. That's not necessarily surprising, given how big Nike is. No company is too big to fail, but in the world of shoes and sports, Nike comes pretty close. Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy. Read the original article on Business Insider

Regulators are cracking down on delivery app junk fees. Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images Local and federal regulators are cracking down on junk fees on food delivery platforms. While regulators are targeting fees, experts say the deeper issue is platform power and dependency. Proposed regulations from the government could have ripple effects on ticketing and travel sites. A growing crackdown on delivery apps is taking shape across the US. Federal regulators are weighing new rules. Lawmakers are probing pricing deals between major companies. And in New York City earlier this month, Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a nearly $1 million settlement with a delivery app over its fee structure, and vowed to continue the momentum. Taken together, the moves point to something bigger than frustration over "junk fees." They signal a widening effort to scrutinize how prices are set — and who actually controls them — across the delivery economy. However, "the fee structure question is the easy part," said Jackie Swanson, a retail and consumer goods strategist and managing partner of Gartner Consulting. A local crackdown turned national The Federal Trade Commission this week took a key step toward potentially regulating delivery fees nationwide, seeking public comment on "unfair or deceptive fee practices" in online food and grocery delivery services, according to the agency. The inquiry targets a familiar frustration: fees that appear late in the checkout process, or pricing that differs from what consumers expect upfront. "Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets," Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in the agency's announcement. The FTC is asking whether companies should disclose total prices earlier, explain the purpose of fees, and clarify when pricing varies across users, according to the Federal Register notice. "The key issue to watch in this rule-making will be how the FTC defines 'fees' and the scope of covered services," M. Scott Vinson, policy and regulatory affairs advisor and former vice president of the National Retail Federation, told Business Insider. A broad definition could push companies across industries toward more all-in pricing and clearer upfront disclosure, Vinson said. The focus is on delivery platforms, like DoorDash and Uber Eats, but FTC regulation could have ripple effects across other direct-to-consumer models that rely on layered charges, such as travel booking and ticketing sites. Representatives for DoorDash and Uber Eats did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. A similar dynamic is already emerging in ticketing, where a recent Justice Department settlement with Live Nation included a $280 million penalty, fee cap, and new transparency requirements — signaling how regulators may approach pricing structures beyond delivery apps "Whether it proceeds to a proposed rule — and how far it goes — will depend on that process," Vinson said, adding that the process is still in early stages. Addressing the affordability crisis Michael Goldberg, a Case Western Reserve University professor who studies entrepreneurship and venture finance, said the effort reflects a broader push that benefits consumers. "We've all been in a situation where you don't see the fee until later, or the prices of the food are way higher than they would be in the store," he said. And the timing isn't accidental. Fees have become a visible target — one that's politically beneficial, especially in the lead-up to the midterm elections. "People are scrutinizing spending across the board," Goldberg said. In that environment, policymakers are looking for ways to show they are "trying to do something" to address the affordability crisis. That helps explain why action is emerging at multiple levels at once. In Congress, lawmakers have introduced legislation to prevent preferential pricing deals between companies, including between delivery apps and restaurants, following allegations that Walmart and PepsiCo struck an agreement allowing the retailer to undercut competitors. In New York City, Mamdani has leaned into enforcement, announcing a nearly $1 million settlement with delivery app HungryPanda, which officials said overcharged restaurants through junk fees, Business Insider previously reported. Fees are the target — but not the whole story For regulators, delivery fees are a clear entry point. But industry insiders say they're only part of a much larger system. Delivery platforms typically charge restaurants commissions of 15% to 30% of an order, with additional fees layered on top — like "enhanced service" charges to ensure they stay visible on the platform, Swanson said. The result is a widening gap between large chains and smaller operators. "Uber Eats just raised rates on small and mid-size restaurants by 5% in March 2026 while leaving custom-negotiated rates for larger partners largely intact," she said. At the center of the issue, Swanson argues, is not just fees but dependency. Smaller operators rely on delivery apps to reach customers, especially as diners eat out less, but are stuck paying high fees to stay visible and compete. That dynamic creates a fundamental imbalance. For large chains, high commissions can be manageable. Restaurants operating on thin margins often respond by raising menu prices on platforms, adding surcharges, or both, she said. Efforts to cap or regulate fees don't eliminate costs; they shift them, Swanson said. Caps can also have unintended consequences for restaurants themselves. "A mom-and-pop Thai place paying 15% in a fee-capped environment but getting buried in search results is not better off than one paying 25% and showing up on the first page," she said. Transparency vs. competition One of the biggest open questions is whether greater transparency will actually change how the market operates. Delivery fees already shape behavior. They can add several dollars to an order, and "value-conscious consumers are gravitating toward pickup" to avoid them, Swanson said — but how those fees are presented matters. A clearly labeled $4 delivery charge feels different than multiple smaller fees that add up to the same amount, she added. "What consumers actually want is to know what the meal will cost before they start building the order, and right now that is not what they get," she said. Still, Goldberg was cautious about how much disruption to expect. "I'm not sure how much room this is going to create for new competitors," he said. Taken together, the FTC's inquiry, congressional scrutiny, and local enforcement actions suggest a broader shift from targeting "junk fees" to examining pricing power. But some say the current regulation talks may be missing a key piece. "Fee caps address the contractual relationship," Swanson said, "but leave the ranking and visibility mechanics entirely untouched," which means restaurants can face lower fees but worse placement, limiting the benefit. For now, the FTC is gathering public input before deciding whether to pursue formal rules. If it does, it could create the first nationwide standards for how delivery fees are disclosed. But even if fees become clearer, they may not become cheaper. As the crackdown expands, the underlying question remains: will consumers pay less — or just pay differently? Read the original article on Business Insider