During an appearance on Fox Business Network's "Big Money," Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) weighed in on his contest against Kansas Democrat nominee Adam Hamilton.
There is virtually no way I could have resisted Sylvie McNamara’s dispatch from her journey to a disreputable McDonald’s in Stafford, Virginia. I’ve listened to my share of the Doughboys podcast, and regularly debate burger rankings with my son. What’s more, I went to high school just two miles down the road from this particular location, whose aggregated Google reviews won it dubious distinction in a nation of interchangeable fast-food franchises. Thankfully, McNamara’s lighthearted investigation, which invites readers to consider Robert Caro and teenage commitments to the social contract, will satisfy you no matter your relationship with the Golden Arches. It reminded me of tongue-in-cheek alt-weekly features, a few pleasurableParis Reviewweb essays, and that episode of Mystery Show where Starlee Kine goes deep with a Ticketmaster employee. Ba-da-ba-ba-ba, I loved it.
I asked the employee for an explanation. “I think I can give you real insight,” he said. “It be the certain workers we got.” He himself is a high schooler, but he said that “we’re starting to get more younger managers. As soon as they turn 18, they’re getting a manager spot. I think my general manager’s 20. It’s a lot of kids getting these manager titles and positions, but they’re not really managers.”
I told him that to be honest, that environment sounded kind of fun.
Dalle immagini degli scontri, dei saccheggi e delle violenze a Milano come in altre città ai contenuti che alimentano la tensione. TikTok si trova a fare i conti con il peso della propria piattaforma nella diffusione delle proteste giovanili. I video delle manifestazioni, diventati virali in diversi Paesi, raggiungono in particolare gli utenti più giovani, mentre cresce la necessità di distinguere la documentazione degli eventi dall’incitamento alla violenza. È in questo contesto che il social network annuncia un rafforzamento delle attività di moderazione e l’attivazione di una task force dedicata. Anche se proprio grazie alle immagini diffuse sono stati identificati due minorenni autori di saccheggi di cui uno di appena 11 anni.
La posizione dell’azienda è netta: “La società condanna ogni forma di violenza e non consente contenuti che la incitano o promuovono attività criminali”. TikTok precisa, tuttavia, che non tutti i filmati delle proteste possono essere considerati allo stesso modo. “Distinguiamo tra i contenuti che documentano le proteste e quelli che incitano alla violenza, garantendo l’accesso alle informazioni e il dibattito pubblico, contrastando al contempo l’uso improprio della piattaforma. In risposta ai recenti disordini, abbiamo attivato una task force e rafforzato le attività di moderazione, anche attraverso tecnologie di riconoscimento di immagini e audio”. Proseguiranno inoltre la rimozione dei video che violano le regole, la sospensione delle dirette e il blocco degli account responsabili delle violazioni.
L’attività di monitoraggio coinvolgerà anche partner esterni, tra cui fact-checker indipendenti, chiamati a collaborare nell’identificazione di possibili minacce emergenti. A questo si aggiunge il blocco dei termini di ricerca che rimandano a contenuti di incitamento alla violenza o ad attività criminali, nel tentativo di limitarne la reperibilità all’interno della piattaforma.
Le restrizioni riguardano anche i guadagni generati dai contenuti in diretta. TikTok ha infatti annunciato limitazioni temporanee ad alcune funzionalità di monetizzazione delle Live legate alle proteste, per evitare che gli eventi vengano trasformati in un’occasione di profitto. “Sono state limitate temporaneamente alcune funzionalità di monetizzazione delle dirette relative alle proteste, per prevenire eventuali forme di sfruttamento economico”, ha spiegato l’azienda. La strategia punta dunque a intervenire su più livelli: dalla circolazione dei video alla loro reperibilità, fino agli eventuali vantaggi economici derivanti dalle dirette. Una stretta che mira a contenere la diffusione di contenuti che alimentano la violenza, senza equiparare automaticamente la cronaca delle proteste alla loro promozione.
Giorgia Meloni non dice di essere favorevole al divieto social per i minori di 14 anni. Però “non è contraria e ostile”, mentre esplodono proteste in piazza e il governo teme interferenze straniere, grazie ad internet e alle piattaforme tecnologiche. Avrebbe potuto approvare un decreto legge, lascia trapelare su Repubblica, ma preferisce lasciare mano libera al Parlamento sul ban per giovanissimi. Eppure, da circa un anno il governo non consegna i pareri ministeriali alla Commissione del Senato. Senza quei documenti, il disegno di legge 1.136 incardinato a Palazzo Madama, non può essere approvato dal Parlamento. Infatti è bloccato da un anno, malgrado sia firmato da Fratelli d’Italia e sostenuto da anche dalle opposizioni. Da mesi il Movimento 5 stelle indizia Giorgia Meloni di congelare il divieto social per non irritare Donald Trump e i colossi tecnologici statunitensi. La senatrice pentastellata Barbara Floridia ricorda la misura ferma da circa un anno e pone la domanda alla premier: “Forse teme di pestare i piedi alle Big Tech e quindi a Trump?”. Un sospetto espresso dalla collega di palazzo Madama Marianna Madia (Italia Viva) sulle pagine di Repubblica il 28 aprile scorso.
Il timore: interferenze straniere, grazie alle piattaforme, per alimentare le contestazioni
Ora, secondo il quotidiano diretto da Stefano Cappellini, i massimi vertici del governo discutono sul ban tecnologico per i minori, anche perché “è sempre più chiaro che una qualche forma di regia esterna potrebbe aver mosso i giovani in piazza”. Ieri anche il ministro Guido Crosetto ha sostenuto la teoria della disinformazione russa sui social come fattore delle contestazioni violente. Oggi, secondo il Financial Times, le autorità europea hanno aperto un’indagine sul ruolo della propaganda straniera nel fomentare manifestazioni in Francia e in Italia. A Bruxelles e Roma sospettano interferenze dall’estero, una guerra ibrida per manipolare le giovani menti europee. Dunque palazzo Chigi auspica un emendamento parlamentare al Decreto sicurezza approvato dal governo, durante la procedura di conversione in legge, per difendere i minori dalla propaganda online.
La senatrice di Fratelli d’Italia Lavinia Mennuni, interpellata da ilfattoquotidiano.it, rilancia verso le opposizioni l’invito di Meloni: il ddl “può essere votato o inserito con un emendamento nel Decreto sicurezza che andrà in Aula”, dichiara la parlamentare. La proposta include l’abbassamento della soglia d’età per l’ingresso nei social network. Il provvedimento n. 1136 incardinato al Senato prevede 15 anni, l’asticella “più appropriata”, secondo la senatrice. Ma considerando “l’ampio consenso delle forze parlamentari sulla soglia dei 14 anni, procediamo pure in questa direzione”. Alla modifica parlamentare è favorevole Casa Riformista con Marianna Madia, co-firmataria del divieto social fermo a Palazzo Madama: presenteremo “subito un emendamento all’ultimo Decreto sicurezza, e chiederemo di firmarlo a tutti gli altri gruppi parlamentari. Capiremo allora quale sarà la vera disponibilità della presidente Meloni”, annuncia la deputata. Che si dice “sbalordita dalle parole della presidente Meloni”, giudicato come uno “smaccato tentativo di rimediare a un ritardo di cui porta tutta la responsabilità”.
Mennuni (FdI) rilancia la proposta di Meloni: “Votare il ddl o un emendamento”. Malpezzi: “Pd l’ha proposto a marzo, richiesta respinta”
Ora Meloni e Fratelli d’Italia aprono all’emendamento con il divieto social a tutela dei minori. Ma “il partito democratico ha più volte presentato la modifica in Parlamento per dare via libera al ban, e ci è sempre stato detto che è inammissibile”, dice a ilfattoquotidiano.itSimone Malpezzi. Il testo della senatrice Pd è giunto a fine marzo per correggere un altro pacchetto sicurezza presentato dal governo, dopo l’esortazione del ministro dell’Istruzione Giuseppe Valditara ad approvare lo stop per l’accesso alle piattaforme da parte dei giovanissimi. La prof accoltellata da un tredicenne in una scuola di Trescore, in provincia di Bergamo, aveva scosso l’opinione pubblica occupando le cronache dei quotidiani e dei talk show. “L’emendamento è stata anche mossa per provocare Meloni”, scoprendo il suo bluff sul divieto social, aggiunge l’esponente dem. Ora il Pd voterebbe l’emendamento al nuovo Decreto sicurezza? “Non so cosa farà il partito”, dice Malpezzi rilanciando la palla nel campo di palazzo Chigi. “Piuttosto, Meloni per l’ennesima volta si dice ‘non contraria’. Ma allora, chi è contrario nel suo governo? Ci dica cosa vuole fare l’esecutivo”, conclude la senatrice.
Floridia (M5s): “Prima il governo finanzi l’educazione digitale nel Decreto scuola”
“Stiamo lavorando al Decreto scuola e abbiamo proposto un emendamento per finanziare l’educazione digitale nelle scuole”, dice Barbara Floridia a ilfattoquotidiano.it. “Noi l’abbiamo introdotta, ora vediamo cosa farà il governo la prossima settimana”, prosegue la senatrice. Il Movimento 5 stelle sarebbe favorevole a votare il divieto social come emendamento al ddl sicurezza, come chiesto da Meloni e rilanciato da Lavinia Mennuni? “Dipende dall’emendamento – risponde Floridia – Sostenerlo o astenersi, per votare contro il Decreto sarebbe la strada da percorrere”, avvisa la pentastellata. “Ma non ha senso votare nulla se non finanzieranno l’educazione digitale a scuola per i più giovani”, prosegue la senatrice. Che lancia la stoccata sull’agenda di Meloni: “Ci stiamo occupando del burqa, nel decreto Scuola, mentre ragazzini di 11 o 12 anni manifestano in modo violento. Quali sono le priorità del governo?”.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt said AI could make companies flatter by taking over some planning and coordination work.
Bloomberg/Getty Images
AI is changing how executives oversee their companies, Eric Schmidt said on the "In Good Company" podcast.
Google's former CEO described several ways execs he knows use AI agents to manage staff.
He described one company that uses AI assistants to ensure that staff are following its core values.
Eric Schmidt thinks the CEO of the future will have an AI assistant that can see across the entire company. For employees whose job is to keep a sprawling business coordinated, that could be bad news.
In an episode of the "In Good Company" podcast, the former Google chief executive described assistants that check whether company activity aligns with a leader's values, follow up on projects, and help identify ways to increase profits.
He argued that the technology could make businesses faster and flatter, with fewer people needed to plan, relay information, and move numbers around.
Schmidt sees little time for companies to adjust. He said competition in AI is fiercer than the PC-versus-Mac or Android-versus-iPhone battles: a model can take roughly six months to build, another two to test, and then be overtaken within five months of release.
"Time compresses every cycle," he said.
He also rejected the idea that AI is a bubble, pointing to Anthropic's rapid revenue growth. Schmidt said the company had grown faster than a record set during his time at Google, calling it "real money with real customers."
The changes he envisions are already visible in smaller experiments, he said. Schmidt gave the example of two founders he knows who ask an AI assistant every Friday to flag anything happening at their company that conflicts with their values.
Another executive created an AI version of himself that checks on an employee's progress, gives him instructions, and responds when he needs help, Schmidt said. That exchange sounded potentially abusive and worried him, he added, though he also saw how it sped up the executive's decisions.
Schmidt said his days as CEO were consumed by meetings, 12 hours a day, five days a week, as he listened to people explain projects and decisions. He thinks AI platforms can eliminate much of that "coordination tax": the effort of gathering updates, passing them upward, and keeping teams aligned.
For a company with 10,000 employees, Schmidt guessed AI could leave "a couple of thousand people who you don’t need."
He cited a friend whose fast-growing company cut 20% of its staff, including the "glue people" who handled planning and coordination. The friend later told Schmidt he had received death threats over the cuts.
Schmidt said companies would still need people who build products, make sales, speak with regulators, and lead teams. His advice to workers whose roles were disappearing was that executives should transition them "legally and humanely."
Europe wants cheaper energy, stronger industries, secure borders and the capacity to sustain Ukraine. Its budget negotiations are exposing the difficulty of paying for those ambitions while protecting established spending programmes and containing national contributions.
Wednesday’s European Parliament debate on the October EU summit brought that contradiction into focus. The dispute over the 2028–2034 Multiannual Financial Framework is becoming a test of whether Europe can translate geopolitical urgency into durable financial commitments.
According to Parliament’s account of the debate, European Council President António Costa wants agreement before the year’s end. He advocated an ambitious budget while keeping national contributions reasonable, alongside progress on new EU revenue sources.
Those objectives are politically attractive. Reconciling them will require difficult choices over spending, taxation and the distribution of authority.
MEPs challenged the assumption that the Union can keep expanding its responsibilities without providing additional resources. Speakers identified support for Ukraine, industrial competitiveness, agriculture, regional development and household living costs among competing priorities.
Their argument has force. A budget negotiated around yesterday’s compromises risks leaving Europe poorly equipped for tomorrow’s threats. Yet calls for ambition become less persuasive when they avoid specifying which programmes deliver measurable European benefits.
The emerging distribution of cuts illustrates the problem. As EU Today previously reported, the Irish presidency’s compromise proposed reducing the Commission’s plans by approximately €141 billion, with competitiveness and security facing proportionately deeper reductions than agriculture and cohesion spending.
That creates an uncomfortable possibility: the policies most closely associated with Europe’s strategic renewal could become bargaining chips in negotiations dominated by established beneficiaries.
Protecting farmers and poorer regions has clear economic and political justification. Nevertheless, preserving familiar allocations while squeezing newer priorities would undermine leaders’ repeated promises to strengthen European independence.
Energy offers perhaps the clearest example of why spending decisions and structural reform must advance together.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told MEPs that dependence on imported fossil fuels and the absence of a genuine European energy union were weakening Europe. Costa emphasised affordable production and modernised electricity grids.
The implication is significant. Industrial subsidies cannot indefinitely compensate for an energy system that leaves European manufacturers facing persistently high costs. Cross-border connections, infrastructure investment and better market integration therefore belong at the centre of competitiveness policy.
Von der Leyen also pressed governments to complete the single market and avoid making European rules more complicated through national implementation. Her argument highlights a limitation of the budget debate: additional money cannot, by itself, remove regulatory fragmentation.
The same distinction applies to China. The Commission president described heavily subsidised Chinese competitors and promised action on dependencies, supply chains and market access. Such measures require coherent enforcement and political resolve alongside investment.
Ukraine adds a security imperative that cannot readily be postponed. Costa linked Ukrainian and European security, while MEPs warned about the consequences of weakening support. Long-term commitments require predictable financing rather than recurring emergency bargains.
But the budget dispute also concerns who controls the money.
As EU Today’s reporting on regional concerns explained, local leaders fear that restructuring could concentrate investment decisions in national capitals, weakening regional influence and potentially widening disparities.
That warning deserves attention. A larger European budget would not automatically produce more balanced development. Allocation rules, accountability and local participation will help determine whether spending strengthens cohesion or reinforces existing advantages.
New revenue sources could ease pressure on national contributions, but they cannot make financing politically painless. Costs ultimately fall somewhere, and governments must explain the distribution honestly.
The central challenge is therefore broader than securing agreement on a headline figure. Europe needs a settlement that protects essential commitments, finances credible common priorities and demonstrates results.
MEPs are right to demand resources consistent with Europe’s responsibilities. Governments are entitled to demand discipline. The failure would be a compromise that satisfies neither requirement: expensive enough to provoke domestic opposition, yet too fragmented to provide the strategic capacity Europe’s leaders insist is indispensable.
A hot, new beauty treatment driving tens of millions of dollars in sales around the globe is now aiming for the US market. Its unusual ingredient: skin from dead Americans.
Each year, tens of thousands of Americans donate bodily tissue upon their deaths, generally by checking a box at a motor vehicle department or through an authorization made by a loved one. Over the past few years, tens of millions of dollars' worth of donated skin has traveled from American tissue banks to biotech companies in South Korea, the beauty capital of the world. There, among other uses, it is turned into injectable beauty treatments.
The maker of the market-leading Korean brand said last week it has signed a distribution contract to introduce its skin-derived injection to the US market next year. It isn't clear whether the product can be sold in the US without approval from federal regulators.
Business Insidertraced the tissue supply chain to understand how donor tissue from, say, San Antonio can end up for sale at a clinic in Seoul — and how much money is being made along the way.
People who donate tissue "have no idea of how much money is changing hands in the course of all of this," Ana Iltis, a professor at Wake Forest and former president of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, told Business Insider. "With tissue donation, there's a lot of money at stake."
Donors and their families can't be paid for organ or tissue donations under US law.
A K-beauty trend
For decades, American plastic surgeons have used products made from human tissue for skin grafts and reconstructive surgeries. That practice includes aesthetic uses — such as cartilage for a nose job or skin for a breast augmentation — though many doctors prefer to use the patient's own tissue for such procedures.
Now, skincare treatments made from human tissue can be purchased for a few hundred dollars and administered at a med spa or dermatology clinic in under an hour. In South Korea, a mecca for cutting-edge beauty treatments, at least 10 biotech companies are making or planning to introduce skin-derived injections.
They are the latest generation of a treatment known among beauty obsessives as "skin boosters." Get your algorithm just right, and your social-media feeds will soon be full of before-and-afters showing off the purported benefits of these products. They depict patients, typically women and sometimes young ones, going from dull to dewy, fine-lined to smooth.
This year, the skin-derived injections are projected to generate $75 million in sales in South Korea, according to analysts at Yuanta Securities.
No brand is bigger than Re2O, which one dermatologist on Instagram called "the Love Potion No. 9 for cells." It accounts for between 60% and 70% of sales in the category, according to L&C Bio, its manufacturer.
South Korea is a mecca for cutting-edge beauty treatments.
JUNG YEON-JE/ Getty Images
Re2O notched the equivalent of more than $17 million in sales in the first half of this year, helping swing the company to an operating profit of about $11 million after a loss of about $326,000 in the same period last year, L&C Bio said. It has expanded the product line with Re2O Fine, marketed for more delicate skin, and is planning to launch a human fat-derived filler next year.
The company said it sold 700,000 units of Re2O as of September. It is available in Singapore and China, and has been approved in the United Arab Emirates, Peru, and Thailand.
Last week, L&C Bio said that it has signed a contract to deliver at least $60 million of Re2O to the US over the next five years. The company also said it may explore acquiring US tissue banks with its US distribution partner.
L&C Bio's plan to introduce Re2O to the US could spark a regulatory showdown. L&C Bio has said Re2O falls into a category of products such as skin grafts that don't require approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.
Some products that manufacturers claim qualify to be sold under this category don't actually meet the applicable criteria, the FDA told Business Insider. The agency said it wouldn't discuss any specific products under investigation.
"Products derived from donor skin that have been decellularized, dried, and ground into a powder for injection as a cosmetic 'skin booster' may raise significant questions" and may have to go through a more complex regulatory approval process, the agency said.
L&C Bio said it wouldn't comment on its discussions with regulators.
Re2O's biggest competitor, CellREDM, came onto the South Korean market in late 2025. It has been such a success that in the quarter ended June 30, operating income for its maker, Hans Biomed, soared to over $3 million after barely eking out a profit in the year-earlier period.
The tissue business
"In the human tissue business, access to raw materials is the lifeblood of the industry," L&C Bio's founder and CEO, Whan Chul Lee, said in Korean in a February interview with a South Korean news outlet.
For his company and its competitors, that lifeblood flows from the United States.
Roughly 90% of all the human tissue used in South Korea is imported, according to South Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. Less than 4% of South Korean adults are registered to donate organs, and even fewer donate tissue. Korean biotech companies have turned primarily to the US, where well over half of adults are registered donors.
Cadaver skin is collected in the US by organ procurement organizations, known as OPOs, and tissue banks.In the transplant system, skin is treated as a tissue, not an organ.
After tissue is collected, its route can vary.A nonprofit OPO often transfers it to an American tissue bank. The tissue bank pays a fee to the OPO, depending on factors like the amount and quality of tissue recovered. The fee covers the cost of the tissue recovery as well as a margin that supports other programs offered by the OPO.
Tissue banks — which can be nonprofit or for-profit entities — supply donor skin to Korean biotech firms.
Much of the US skin supplied to South Korea is used for more traditional medical purposes, like skin grafts for burn victims. L&C Bio makes such therapeutic products and says it prioritizes supply for them.
Tens of millions of dollars' worth of donated skin has traveled over the past few years from American tissue banks to biotech companies in South Korea.
Ed Jones/AFP via Getty Images
L&C Bio spent more than $25 million on donor skin from US tissue banks between 2023 and 2025 and $3.8 million in the first half of this year, according to corporate filings. The company told Business Insider that a quarter of its skin supply is used to make Re2O.
Organ distribution is coordinated by a public-private partnership with the federal government. Tissue is handled differently. It is distributed through commercial relationships.
The more traditional business aspects of the tissue industry have been a subject of debate since the federal law governing America's organ recovery and distribution system was enacted in the 1980s. In a system that relies on altruism, money changing hands could affect public trust, Jerold Mande, who helped write the National Organ Transplant Act, told Business Insider.
There is little data on American attitudes toward tissue donation. A survey of more than 1,000 families of donors in the US published in a 2010 academic journal found less than 30% said they thought it was acceptable for donated tissues to be processed and distributed by for-profit companies.
Revenue from tissue, primarily skin and bone, drove 93% of American OPO profits between 2013 and 2017, or a total of about $107 million per year in profit at 51 OPOs, according to a study in the medical journal Transplantation. The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations called the study outdated, said the money collected for tissue helps fund other life-saving work, and objected to the study's use of the word "profit."
"Reimbursed funds go directly back into the organization, supporting organ procurement as well as aftercare programs for donor families such as bereavement support and grief counseling," said Jenny Daigle, a spokesperson for the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Organizations must have a margin and reserves to remain financially stable, she added.
Human tissue donations help millions of people in the US each year, including skin for burn victims, bone for cancer survivors, and eyes for the visually impaired, Daigle said.
Tens of thousands of Americans donate bodily tissue each year upon their deaths, often by checking a box at a motor vehicle department.
Patrick Sison/ AP Photo
Regenerative Biologics, a Florida tissue bank, provides all the skin for Re2O, L&C Bio confirmed to Business Insider.
Regenerative's CEO, Sandy McCann, said her tissue bank acts as an intermediary, supplying skin collected by other organizations, and provides L&C Bio only with skin from donors who have given consent for international and cosmetic use. If other American tissue banks have skin that they can't use, "many times we can place it where someone can," she said.
Regenerative had just over $16 million in annual revenue in 2024 and 2025, according to reports filed with a Florida regulator.
By reviewing South Korean government records and images of product packaging, Business Insider identified two other US tissue banks, South Texas Blood and Tissue and RTI Surgical, that supply tissue for skin-derived injectable beauty treatments made by Korean companies.
South Texas Blood & Tissue supplies skin used to make South Korea's No. 2 brand, CellREDM. The tissue bank is based in San Antonio, sometimes called "Military City, USA" because of the large military base there. Educational materials on the tissue bank's website say that donor skin "heals patients suffering from burns or other traumatic wounds, and in reconstructive surgeries, including those wounded during military service."
South Texas Blood & Tissue said each of its tissue donors helps an average of 75 recipients. International distribution and commercial use are longstanding practices in the tissue industry, the group said. Tissue donor families have the option to decline cosmetic, international, or research use, the group added.
"Our top priority is to serve as good stewards of these tissue donations, and to ensure that all tissue we recover has the greatest impact possible," it said.
RTI, a Florida tissue bank that does business as Evergen, said it transfers a small amount of unprocessed donor skin to DOF, a tissue bank in South Korea that manufactures the skin-derived injection product Juveacell. RTI added that it is"dedicated to honoring the generosity of donors and their families."
The Axel Springer Global Reporters Network harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, The Telegraph, WELT, BILD, Onet and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms: online, print, TV and audio.
Andie Allan wants to work remotely in part so she can care for her German Shepherd, Luther.
Courtesy of Andie Allan
Still dreaming of logging on in comfy clothes? Fully remote jobs are getting harder to land.
Remote roles accounted for 9% of LinkedIn postings in September, yet drew 33% of applications.
If you want a remote position, be prepared to show you can communicate well and thrive from afar.
When Andie Allan scans job listings, her dog, Luther, is never far from her mind — or her side.
The 92-pound German Shepherd has a spot on the couch in Allan's home office. Allan, a marketing manager who hasn't worked full-time in person in more than a dozen years, is looking for a job that lets her remain fully remote, in part so she can stay close to Luther.
More than six years after the pandemic ushered in awork-from-home revolution, many office workers have gotten used to skipping some commutes and having more flexibility outside their 9-to-5. Others have embraced a return to in-person collaboration.
For some, these remote setups are a preference. For others, it can make holding down a job feasible alongside factors like caregiving responsibilities or disabilities.
The search for remote jobs can be tough, however, unless you have an especially in-demand or niche skill set. In the US, fully remote roles made up 9% of job postings on LinkedIn in September, yet drew 33% of applications, the company said.
Competition for those roles has also increased as many companies have returned to the office, at least part-time. The number of applicants per remote job rose 10% from a year earlier, according to LinkedIn.
Candidates seeking these roles might need to show employers they can succeed without regular office time — contrary to what some corporate leaders might prefer. Allan is using her track record of remote work as a selling point when applying. She points to the successful products she launched while working with global teams she rarely met in person.
Allan said she's happy being at home, even if it means forgoing opportunities. Commuting to an office from her home outside London could work, Allan said, "If I was 25 and had no ties and wasn't married to a German Shepherd."
More jobs require in-office time
Access to remote jobs also isn't evenly spread across industries. LinkedIn found that it was most common in technology, information, and media; financial services; and administrative and support services.
Winston Murdock, who's dialed in from home since 2010, works in one of the more remote-friendly corners of the job market as a software team lead. He and his wife bought their house outside Atlanta with an extra bedroom for his dedicated office.
Years ago, Murdock said, a recruiter approached him about a job that would have paid more but required a two-hour round-trip commute on weekdays. Murdock and his wife considered the added costs of childcare, gas, vehicle wear and tear, lunches, and work clothes fancier than a T-shirt.
"There's maybe a number that will get me to choose to be back in the office," Murdock said. "That number was not it."
Murdock said he loves his role at a Canadian software company and plans to stay, in part because of the remote arrangement. He would consider office work only if he lost his job.
How to find fully remote work
For workers looking for a new role, office time is increasingly part of the bargain. Robert Half, the staffing firm, said in a July report that a shift toward in-office work meant "more competition for fully remote roles and a near guarantee that new opportunities will come with at least some in-office time."
The relative scarcity of remote jobs makes a targeted search especially important, said Markos Korvesis, a career coach who helps people find such roles. He said job seekers often don't know how to tailor their résumés to show they are a good fit for logging on from outside an office.
Korvesis spends most of his time in Vietnam and has worked from more than three dozen countries over the last eight years. He recommends that job seekers highlight that they're up to date with AI tools and have solid experience using a variety of communication platforms, from Slack to Discord.
People should point to examples of how they've worked across offices, nations, and cultures, Korvesis said. It's important, he said, to be specific: If you've worked with teams in five time zones, say so.
Landing a remote job is only one of the difficulties. Chad Albert, who lives in South Florida and helps customize and sell software used in healthcare, said technology has made it easier to collaborate across distances, yet communicating through a screen can make it harder to connect with colleagues.
Albert said he makes an effort to pay attention when coworkers talk about their hobbies or what they did over the weekend.
The goal is to be a bit more outgoing and engage people in some side conversations, he said, adding that otherwise, "You wind up living on an island."
With fewer remote openings and more applicants per posting, the job search can demand persistence.
From her home southwest of London, Allan has been looking for a full-time marketing role since May 2025. Last year, she said she was in a "blind panic, applying for everything," submitting more than 1,000 applications.
Now, Allan said, she is being more deliberate. Unless she fully fits the criteria, she doesn't apply, she said. Allan also remains upfront with prospective employers about Luther, who gets at least three walks a day, including one at lunchtime.
"If they get me, great," she said. "And if they don't, well, maybe it's not a great fit."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Samarkand on October 19 with nearly 300 American business leaders, seeking to deepen US commercial ties with Central Asia. Washington’s renewed interest will matter less for how many agreements it produces than for whether American investment helps the region move beyond being merely a supplier of raw […]
In the first round of Brazil’s elections on Oct. 4, 2026, Flávio Bolsonaro, of the right wing Liberal Party (PL), came in first with 47.03% of the valid votes, compared with 45.16% for the current leftist president and Workers’ Party (PT) candidate, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. The margin was just over 2.2 million votes, […]
Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, wrote about the phrase "disagree and commit" in a 2016 Amazon shareholder letter under a section labeled "High-Velocity Decision Making," and it's been making a comeback.
While Bezos popularized the phrase, it echoes a management philosophy that goes back to the 1980s, when Andy Grove ran Intel. Richard S. Tedlow, Grove's biographer, previously told BI that the concept of disagreeing and committing "was the essence of how he felt you should comport yourself at Intel."
Why it works
The idea behind "disagree and commit" is to defend your argument and make a clear case. However, if the team rallies around a different decision, you have to commit to it too. Bezos argued that the use of "disagree and commit" could "save a lot of time."
"If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there's no consensus, it's helpful to say, 'Look, I know we disagree on this but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?'" Bezos wrote.
The former Amazon CEO has even used it himself, such as when his team green-lit an Amazon Studios project that he didn't think would succeed. Instead of continuing the back-and-forth, he disagreed but committed to the plan.
Try it today
The next time you disagree with a coworker, make the case for your idea and give it your all.
Once the decision is made, though, ask yourself if there's anything you can do to help it work better.
The bottom line
You don't need to agree with every decision at your job, but everyone benefits if there's an expectation that once a decision is made, everyone rallies behind it and tries to make it work.
Source
This insight is drawn from Business Insider's reporting about the origins of the "disagree and commit" phrase that Jeff Bezos popularized, and why it's making a comeback. Read the full story in Business Insider from Ana Altchek and Tim Paradis here.
Has this framework for disagreements worked for you? Tell us what you think of this advice in the comments below.
The European Parliament has demanded €225 billion for the European Union’s foreign policy and development programmes between 2028 and 2034, challenging proposals by member states to reduce spending under the bloc’s next long-term budget.
The Parliament’s Foreign Affairs and Development committees approved their negotiating position on the Global Europe Instrument on Monday, 19 October, by 63 votes to 27, with five abstentions. The proposed allocation represents an increase of €25 billion over the European Commission’s original €200 billion proposal.
The decision comes as negotiations over the wider 2028–2034 EU budget have become increasingly contentious, with Germany and several other net contributors opposing higher expenditure while Brussels faces mounting demands for defence, industrial investment, enlargement and support for Ukraine.
Parliament rejects proposed reductions
Under the position adopted by the parliamentary committees, at least €25 billion would be reserved for humanitarian assistance. MEPs also want dedicated funding for reconstruction in Gaza and financial support for countries seeking EU membership.
The committees are proposing that 20 per cent of official development assistance should be directed towards human development, alongside stronger provisions covering democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Global Europe is intended to consolidate several existing financing instruments into a single framework governing much of the Union’s external expenditure. The programme would finance activities ranging from development cooperation and humanitarian assistance to economic partnerships and support for countries preparing to join the EU.
The Commission introduced the original €200 billion proposal in July 2025. However, subsequent negotiations among member states have raised the prospect of substantial reductions.
Germany, the Netherlands and several Nordic countries have argued that the next budget must reflect the financial constraints facing national governments. Their objections have complicated efforts to accommodate additional spending on European security and economic competitiveness.
The European Parliament has taken a different position, maintaining that reducing external expenditure would restrict the Union’s ability to operate internationally when European security and economic interests increasingly depend on developments beyond its borders.
Ukraine and enlargement funding
The parliamentary proposal would preserve support for Ukraine while seeking to prevent assistance connected with Russia’s invasion from reducing resources available to other partner countries.
Ukraine’s reconstruction, institutional reforms and integration with European markets will require substantial financing over the coming years. However, the precise allocation will depend on negotiations over the wider budget and the financing arrangements eventually approved.
For candidate countries, MEPs want clearer incentives linking EU assistance to progress on political and economic reforms. The proposed framework would also provide Brussels with greater powers to suspend funding where democratic standards, human rights or judicial independence deteriorate.
A separate provision would permit the Commission to suspend payments where partner countries seriously fail to meet obligations concerning the readmission of their nationals.
That measure reflects the growing connection between the EU’s development policy and its migration objectives. Brussels has increasingly sought cooperation on returns and border management as part of agreements with countries receiving European assistance.
The committees have also called for stronger parliamentary supervision of Global Europe, including more detailed reporting by the Commission and regular discussions with the commissioners responsible for implementation.
Difficult negotiations ahead
The financial disagreement extends well beyond external policy. The overall seven-year budget remains contested, particularly over agricultural subsidies, regional development funds, defence investment and repayment of borrowing undertaken during the coronavirus pandemic.
As EU Today previously reported, a group of 17 member states has opposed reductions in agricultural and cohesion spending, adding further pressure to negotiations.
The Parliament’s proposed €225 billion allocation has not been agreed by governments and does not constitute an approved spending commitment.
The committees also approved a mandate for negotiations with the Council, although their position still requires endorsement by the full Parliament, provisionally expected in November.
Meanwhile, member states must settle their own negotiating position, including the financial ceilings governing the programme.
The eventual settlement will determine how much Brussels can spend on development cooperation, humanitarian operations and international partnerships after 2027, and how those commitments can be reconciled with the EU’s expanding domestic financial obligations.
Protesters vandalise a retail store during a demonstration near Place de la République, as the the Gilets Jaunes join students for a weekend of action on October 17, 2026 in Paris, Franc
Carl Court/Getty Images
Screenshots of Vinted listings circulating on social media show products being offered for a fraction of their retail prices.
The suspected stolen merchandise was listed after looting in France.
Vinted told The Telegraph it had taken immediate action to identify and remove listings connected to the violence.
Resale websites including Vinted have removed suspicious listings after they were flooded with apparently stolen goods in the wake of riots that swept across France.
Perfumes, designer handbags, cosmetics and even Pokémon cards have appeared on second-hand marketplaces following a weekend of violence that saw shops ransacked, The Telegraph — which, like Business Insider, is part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network — reported.
Screenshots circulating on social media show products being offered for a fraction of their retail prices, including bags overflowing with Sephora cosmetics advertised for as little as €10 (£8.40).
The listings have triggered suspicions that looters are trying to sell stolen goods online. eBay and Vinted have removed some items and stepped up their monitoring of suspicious activity.
One advert on Vinted showed six Sephora lip glosses being sold for €15, while another offered six tubes of cleansing cream for just €12.
Sephora France sells comparable own-brand lip glosses for around €13 each, meaning six would ordinarily cost around €78.
A screenshot of a Vinted listing showing suspected stolen Sephora beauty products
Screenshot
Other listings included Christian Dior perfumes advertised for €250 and large quantities of make-up still in their original packaging.
In one case, Pokémon trading cards allegedly stolen from a shop in Lille were advertised on Vinted, with some still bearing their original price stickers.
Hundreds of cards were reportedly found scattered across streets in the northern French city after a fire at Le Coin des Barons, a shop specialising in collectable cards.
A trophy said to have been stolen from French e-sport club Team Vitality was advertised on eBay for €1,250.
The silver StarLadder Counter-Strike trophy was photographed against a graffiti-covered wall and listed under the title: "STOLEN RARE VITALITY CS2 TROPHÉE."
Team Vitality confirmed that its Paris premises had been looted during Saturday's unrest, with trophies and computer equipment stolen and display windows smashed.
The listings emerged as France struggled to contain some of its worst civil unrest in years, caused by anger over the cost of living and deteriorating public services.
More than half a million people joined demonstrations on Saturday, with violent clashes breaking out in Paris, Marseille, Lyon and other cities.
French authorities said more than 2,400 people had been arrested by Sunday, while nearly 1,000 police officers were injured.
The unrest has spread beyond France, with demonstrations about living costs and public spending also taking place in Belgium, Portugal and Italy.
French retailers have been left counting the cost, with supermarket giant Carrefour reporting damage to 50 stores, including 20 that were looted.
'We have zero tolerance for it'
Sephora closed its French stores on Saturday evening and kept them shut on Sunday after several branches were ransacked.
Vinted said it had taken immediate action to identify and remove listings connected to the violence.
A spokesman said: "The sale of stolen goods, or soliciting them, is strictly prohibited on Vinted, and we have zero tolerance for it."
The company said it had stepped up monitoring and would take action against offenders, including permanently banning accounts. It added that it was working with law enforcement and French authorities to identify suspicious sellers.
An eBay spokesman said: "The sale of stolen property is strictly prohibited on eBay."
The company said it used technology to identify suspicious activity and worked closely with police to investigate criminal behaviour.
The spokesman added: "If we receive confirmation from law enforcement that an item has been stolen, we remove it immediately and take action against the seller."
This story originally appeared on The Telegraph and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from Business Insider, POLITICO, The Telegraph, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.
Matt Gaetz resigned from the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2024, shortly before the House Ethics Committee released a report accusing him of having sex with a 17-year-old girl in 2017, when he was 35, and "regularly pa[ying] women for engaging in sexual activity with him." The probe was widely discussed as a sex trafficking probe, but the ethics committee "did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Representative Gaetz violated the federal sex trafficking statute," per its report.
Now two women have filed a civil lawsuit accusing Gaetz of sex trafficking.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, says that Gaetz and two other men (Joel Micah Greenberg and Christopher Dorworth) broke federal anti-trafficking laws by using "their public office, power, and wealth to prey on the economic vulnerability" of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2.
Gaetz, who now hosts The Matt Gaetz Show on One America News Network, said many of the suit's allegations against him are false. "The lawsuit relies almost exclusively on a Congressional Committee report that didn't allow me to confront my accusers," he said. "Now I will finally have that chance."
On X, Gaetz posted an image of three women in bikinis seated next to bottles of beer and looking at the ocean and wrote "Jane Doe Strikes Again! Two adult women sued me today alleging they were sex trafficked to the Bahamas. I'm shocked nobody responded to their repeated cries for help, posted to instagram."
Jane Doe Strikes Again! Two adult women sued me today alleging they were sex trafficked to the Bahamas. I'm shocked nobody responded to their repeated cries for help, posted to instagram. https://t.co/HPvX2xypzs
This does not seem like especially helpful behavior from a public relations perspective, to say nothing of whether it's legally wise to for Gaetz to be posting to social media about the suit against him.
But Gaetz's point isn't entirely off base. The actions described in the suit against him are hardly what most people would consider sex trafficking.
Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 were adult women willingly advertising on Seeking Arrangement, a site aimed at connecting young women with rich men for mutually beneficial relationships. And by their own account, that is what went down. They were taken on trips and paid thousands of dollars while hanging out, partying, and having sex with Gaetz and his friends.
Needless to say, advertising on a sugar baby website does not make you fair game for forced prostitution or sexual assault. But nowhere in the lawsuit are forced prostitution or sexual assault alleged.
Instead, we get sentences like this: Gaetz and the other defendents "led [Jane Doe 1] to believe they could solve her financial problems as long as she kept performing sexual acts for them and their associates," states the suit. But "the money never came as a single payment that would have solved Jane Doe 1's financial issues."
So…it's sex trafficking because he didn't pay her enough at one time? I don't think that's how the law works.
Overall, it's a stretch to say that Gaetz's actions as described in this suit fall under the scope of the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Under federal law, sex trafficking must involve an element of force, fraud, or coercion, and/or must involve commercial sex involving someone who is under age 18.
In this case, both alleged victims were in their 20s at the time of the alleged trafficking. No element of force or fraud is claimed. And the type of "coercion" alleged seems more appropriate for a college debate than a courtroom.
There was no suggestion that harm would come to the women or their families, that a job or housing would be lost, or that failure to engage in sexual activity with Gaetz and his friends would result in some sort of other (physical, reputational, legal, etc.) harm befalling them. There was nothing on Gaetz's end that would seem to arise to "coercion" under federal trafficking statute, which defines it as involving "threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person," a scheme to make someone believe that serious harm will befall them if they don't comply, or abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.
The suit contains a lot about Greenberg—a former tax collector who is in prison after pleading guilty to charges that include sex trafficking—and comparatively little about Gaetz. It seemingly attempts to make up for the lack of direct allegations against him by noting findings from the Ethics Committee, even though that committee specifically said it could not find evidence of sex trafficking.
Gaetz is accused of having sex with Jane Doe 1 at a party while Jane Done 1 was on MDMA. But the suit does not accuse Gaetz of foisting drugs on her, simply saying "controlled substances circulated at the party, and Jane Doe 1 took MDMA during the evening." Nor does it say that anyone forced Jane Doe 1 to be at the party or to have sex with Gaetz.
Gaetz is also accused of paying Jane Doe thousands of dollars—never directly after sex or as a direct quid pro quo, but during the same time period during which he was having sex with her. The payments were labeled things like "Being my friend," "Being awesome," "Here," and "Just because," the suit says.
And Gaetz is accused, along with the other defendants, of paying to fly Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2—whom Greenberg met through the sugar baby website and introduced to Gaetz—"to Venice Beach, Miami, Las Vegas, the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, and New York City" and paying for their hotel rooms. The suit does not say that they were forced or coerced on these trips, merely that the trips exposed them to "men they would never otherwise have met, and every part of that access, from the flights to the hotel rooms, was paid for by men, including the Defendants, who expected sex in return."
The women's lawyer told the Associated Press that there was "an exploitative power imbalance," because on one side you had a congressman and some other powerful men and on the other "young financially vulnerable women in their early twenties."
Morally speaking, that might be relevant. And for a congressman, it may have been grounds for sanction. But the fact that these women were younger and less financially successful does not make a relationship between them and Gaetz de facto "coercive" or illegal.
Age gaps in relationships—even substantial ones—are not outlawed. And relationships in which an older man is attractive precisely because he has more money and power than the younger female involved, and offers to spend it lavishly, are not uncommon. The idea that this violates federal criminal law simply showcases how distorted our ideas of sex trafficking have become.
In the News
Children have a fundamental right to access the internet, says India's Supreme Court. The Free PressJournalreports:
"The safety of our children and their freedom are not at odds with each other. Our children are entitled to both," the court observed.
The bench explicitly recognised the right to access and use the internet as a fundamental right under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, read with Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Meanwhile, in the U.S.: "A federal appeals court panel has ruled that Florida's 2024 law restricting access to social media for teens is likely constitutional and can continued to be enforced while the legal challenge continues," notes the Florida Phoenix.
We were promised REPEATEDLY that age-verification law was narrow, and would ONLY apply to porn. But— as we warned —it was always a ruse.Since conservatives got their ruling in FSC v Paxton, they've pushed to age-gate anything and everything. It's not going to stop with social media or chatbots.
'Appropriate safeguards.' A small change in the language of the Apple App Store's app review guidelines could portend big changes. Via9to5Mac:
Under Section 1.2, which covers user-generated content, the guidelines now read (changes in bold):
Apps that enable users to create, generate, upload, share, or otherwise contribute content present particular challenges, including intellectual property infringement, nonconsensual intimate imagery, and anonymous bullying.
Apple's new terms add that "Developers who fail to implement appropriate safeguards or fail to remediate identified violations after notice may be considered in violation of the Developer Code of Conduct."
The change is being reported as a crackdown on "nudification" apps, and that certainly seems to be part of it. But the language about going after "developers who fail to implement appropriate safeguards"—combined with the broad warning about user-generated content—could signal a broader intent to crack down on social media platforms and other types of apps that don't implement ID verification or engage in more intense content moderation.
On Substack
Don't sacrifice due process to outrage. We can't let anger over allegations of gang rape at Cornell convince us to re-implement old Title IV policies that disregard due process, writes Robert Shipley of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression:
There's a groundswell of demand to "do something" in the wake of the sexual assault claims at Cornell. But amid the outrage and concern over the incident, it's critical to remember that one attempted remedy we actually know will not work is to return to a campus justice system in which the burden of proof is on the accused and basic civil liberties are cast aside. That social experiment has already been run. It failed.
Title IX, the law against sex discrimination in federally funded education programs, was passed in 1972. Debates at the time focused on how it would affect single-sex colleges and college athletics. Explicitly aimed at sex discrimination, the text of the law itself mentions neither sexual assault nor sexual harassment. Those became matters for Title IX gradually over the next couple of decades, as courts determined that sexual assault and sexual harassment were both forms of sex discrimination, and therefore covered under Title IX.
The Jane Doe lawsuit against Cornell and the accused students (as well as a fraternity, a sorority, and a local bar) hit national news at nearly the same time that the Trump administration officially removed the Biden-era regulations from the Federal Register. While almost certainly not related, some have connected the two, citing the Cornell incident to argue that regulations surrounding Title IX need to be changed again to reduce due process protections for the accused.
Not to pick on Sam here, but this is a useful point to highlight some of the impossibility of trust & safety work. Meta actually used to have a program *exactly* like this, BUT it became a central feature of Frances Haugen's Facebook Files as an example of Meta being evil.I'll explain…
• A new pair of high-tech sunglasses from Meta "can read your mail, describe the person in front of you, tell you what is on a restaurant menu, and help you find your way home," writesReason's Reem Ibrahim. "For the approximately 700,000 Americans who are blind, it is potentially life-changing."
• "The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a decision ordering new trials for two people facing human trafficking and sexual services offences, after concluding they should have been able to cross-examine a complainant about the commercial aspect of her prior sex work," reportsThe Canadian Press. "The case looked at the application of section 276 of the Criminal Code, known as the rape shield law, which limits use of evidence about a complainant's sexual history in court proceedings."
• Markets in everything:
This website lets you attend the wedding of complete strangers
Couples list their weddings and users can buy a ticket to attend https://t.co/8b7EawyFod
• The People First Transportation Alliance has been campaigning against robot taxis in D.C. "But just who is behind the group remains unclear, even as it has sought to sway the outcome of a contentious issue with vast sums of money and thousands of jobs at stake across the country," reportsThe Washington Post.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei during a September visit to Washington, DC.
Bloomberg/Getty Images
Anthropic is looking to shape AI regulation by pitching an AI safety bill of its own.
POLITICO obtained a confidential draft of the proposed legislation.
The bill would let the government block an AI model only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people.
Representatives for the artificial intelligence giant Anthropic have quietly pitched Capitol Hill lawmakers on a draft bill to regulate frontier AI safety and security, according to three people with knowledge of the efforts who were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The confidential draft, obtained by POLITICO and not previously reported, marks a notable effort by the frontier AI lab to shape the rules governing its own technology as Congress weighs how to respond to the fast-moving industry.
"This bill represents the proposals outlined in Anthropic's Advanced AI Framework, which we have been advocating for with federal and state lawmakers since June," an Anthropic spokesperson said. "These are sensible policies we believe Congress should act on."
The bill would let the government block a model's release or use only if it poses a foreseeable, imminent risk of more than $1 billion in damages, or of killing or seriously injuring more than 50 people. The risk must stem from the creation or release of a biological weapon, the model evading its developer's controls or a cyberattack. The language mirrors that found in California's AI laws including SB 53, which was signed into law last year.
Leading AI labs disclosed a series of incidents this summer, in which AI agents hacked or probed websites and platforms. None reported so far appear to have caused widespread deaths or over $1 billion in damages.
Anthropic has yet to publicly back particular legislative efforts in Congress, but they have backed some state AI safety laws, including two in California. Their head of U.S. state and local government relations previously told POLITICO that they hope states will continue to pass ever-stronger AI safety laws that raise the standard nationwide.
Under the bill, independent evaluators, which would register with the Commerce Department, would be tasked with periodically evaluating the lab and its frontier models. The evaluators may be paid for their work by the lab itself so long as the payment is not contingent on the evaluations' results.
If the evaluators determine there is "imminent enumerated risk" for a company's frontier models, they must report it to Commerce within 72 hours of completing their assessment.
While the Commerce Department could bring a request to the judge to halt the release of a model after determining that it poses a risk, the language explicitly prohibits any other U.S. "department, agency, or officer" from suspending the model's development, deployment or internal use. A federal judge for the District Court for the District of Columbia could order the suspension of a model.
Over the summer, Anthropic was subject to sweeping export controls that shut down two of its most advanced models. The decision was made in a whirlwind series of phone calls between administration officials and the company's executives, worrying some in the tech industry that access to their technology may be restricted on the whims of government officials.
Anthropic's bill would also preempt some state AI laws related to public disclosure of risk, third-party evaluation and reporting of critical incidents. Preemption has been a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill, with Democrats rejecting some proposals they feared would neuter regulations passed by the likes of California, Illinois and New York.
Many tech industry groups have argued that a state-by-state patchwork of laws is difficult to comply with compared to a unified national standard.
The legislation would also require frontier labs to create safety frameworks, publish transparency reports for new frontier models, implement protections for whistleblowers and report critical safety incidents to Commerce.
Capitol Hill has seen a flurry of activity on AI safety legislation this summer. In the House, Reps. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) spearheaded the FRONTIER Act, which would give the government the ability to stop the deployment of risky models and preempt some state AI laws.
In the Senate, Majority Leader John Thune and Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have been negotiating an AI safety bill intended to mitigate catastrophic risks. But it has faced headwinds from some safety-minded groups and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on Cruz's Commerce Committee, who want the government to have a larger role in reviewing AI models.
Other progressives, including Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have gone well beyond their colleagues in calling for a pause in advanced AI development and a ban on superintelligence, a type of theoretical AI that far surpasses humans' cognitive capabilities.
This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.
I video di Giorgina Siviero sono ormai un format riconoscibile: chi li segue cerca sì consigli di stile, ma anche la brillantezza e l’eloquio della protagonista. Dietro un successo social da 40 milioni di visualizzazioni a settimana c’è però anche sua figlia, Elena Cecchi, 57 anni, architetta e fotografa. È lei ad aver inventato il meccanismo della domanda improvvisa che, a un certo punto del video, offre a Siviero lo spunto per parlare di moda, gusto e vita quotidiana.
L’idea, racconta al Corriere della Sera, è nata quasi per caso: “Un giorno mia madre stava parlando con una cliente (della sua storica boutique San Carlo a Torino, ndr) e ho filmato la scena così com’era. Spiegava le regole della valigia perfetta: pochi capi essenziali per stare via qualche giorno. La mattina dopo mi sono svegliata con mille follower in più”. Cecchi vuole però restare “invisibile”, perché “la protagonista è la mamma”. E svela anche uno dei segreti del format: Giorgina non sa mai in anticipo quale domanda le verrà fatta. “A volte protesta, è insofferente: ‘Potevi anticiparmi qualche domanda, magari mi preparavo sull’argomento!’. Le rispondo che mi basta il suo pensiero, così come le viene. Oggi abbiamo bisogno di cose vere, anche imperfette, ma autentiche”.
The meal kit delivery service denies the allegations, saying it found claims to be ‘entirely without merit’
Workers at a HelloFresh facility in Newark, New Jersey have claimed in court documents that they were verbally and physically abused and denied regular bathroom breaks, with one former worker telling the Guardian he experienced incontinence issues as a result.
The newly proposed amended complaint comes in a class action lawsuit first filed in August 2024 against the food prep service giant and staffing agencies. A New Jersey state court judge is expected to review the amended complaint in a hearing scheduled for 23 October.
When embraced and used carefully, AI tools can help gain perspective and boost productivity at work.
Alex Cristi /Getty Images | Chris Williams
Chris Williams was the VP of HR at Microsoft and is now an advisor and consultant.
Williams uses a broad range of AI tools and encourages his clients to do the same.
"Perhaps you'll find, as I did: AI can be better at deletion than creation," he says.
Practically every company is making AI tools available to their employees. As the former VP of HR at Microsoft and a leadership advisor with over 50 years of business experience, I'm amazed at how quickly this rollout has progressed.
Some people are all in, using the tools for nearly everything they do. Others have barely stuck their toes in the AI waters. I've been using a broad range of AI tools and encourage my clients to do the same.
AI isn't without controversy, and if someone is strongly against using it — for whatever reason — I'm not going to convince them otherwise.
But if you're wondering how and why you should use these tools, I'm here for you. Let's talk about three ways I advise all my executive clients to use AI effectively in the workplace.
1. Use AI as a second opinion
Use AI as a way to see things you might not have seen. Ask it, "What am I missing?"
I agree with many that AI is lousy at most creative efforts. Whether written or visual, AI results can be generic, mediocre, and often embarrassing. The output usually deserves the "AI Slop" label it gets. But to dismiss it entirely misses a core value.
AI is useful with, perhaps even because of, that generic, often obvious other perspective.
It can be amazingly helpful to simply ask: what am I missing? Since AI has a tendency to agree with me, I explicitly ask for pushback: "review this and tell me what I'm missing, tell me where I'm wrong." The fact that AI is so obvious, so average, is actually a core value here. I'm often surprised at the points I missed and the viewpoints I overlooked.
Even if AI doesn't find things you missed, a contrarian angle can be very helpful to shore up your own case. You'll be able to say, "Yes, I considered those things, and here's why my take on this issue is better."
In that way, AI can also help you prepare for your discussions with colleagues. With so many letting AI draft their arguments, it's very valuable to see their perspective in advance.
So no, I don't let AI make my case, but I always look for another perspective in what I do — wherever it comes from. Having a tool that can give me that on a moment's notice is incredibly useful.
2. Ask AI to summarize dense information
Long before AI, we all had that colleague who always told you far more than you needed to know. With some now using AI heavily, it can frankly be overwhelming.
You ask a simple question and get a blizzard of AI-generated noise in response. AI can be the worst over-explainer when simply left to run. You see the results in a seven-page response.
When I'm faced with one of these walls of text, I've learned there are really only two ways to respond. I can, and often do, ask the person to try again. What does this all really mean? Can you summarize your point in a couple of sentences? I occasionally get snarky and ask for the "non-AI slop" version.
Another way to deal with this is to ask AI to summarize it, whether AI tools or a wordy colleague wrote it. Importantly, I don't trust the AI summary to be the full explanation, but it helps me understand the key points. Which I then work to find in the original blizzard response.
Yes, this is a little circular. After all, why not just have the two AI systems have the discussion? Leave me out of it. But in a world where it seems everyone has a hard time getting to the point, any tool to cut through the noise is welcome. And AI is very good at that.
3. Let AI help you with tasks
In a similar vein, one thing AI does incredibly well is organize. This kind of rote task of sorting, filtering, and filing is right in the sweet spot for most AI systems.
I'm wary of letting AI systems automate tasks like filtering or filing things without my supervision. I'd never let an AI system automatically send emails, texts, or documents without my careful review. But I often have AI systems help me sort through mountains of accumulated debris.
I recently moved to a new computer system and had AI review what I was planning to move over. I discovered decades of accumulated cruft. Simply from a comprehensive list, I found gigabytes of programs, files, and settings, 90% of which I just left behind.
So if you have 8,000 emails in your inbox, or a documents folder that has grown a second life, let an AI system take a look for you. Don't just tell it to "deal with it." Your judgment is needed.
Rather, have it give you a review of it and another perspective. And once you've reviewed it, perhaps you'll find, as I did: AI can be better at deletion than creation.
So when your company rolls out the next new AI, use those tools to your advantage. AI can help you see another perspective, find the important points in the blizzard, and cut through the mess. I've embraced AI, use it with great care, and encourage everyone to do the same.
Seven Tory MPs who skipped a vote on leaving the ECHR also belong to the pro-Net Zero 'Conservative Environment Network'. Coincidence? Paul Homewood thinks not and reckons Kemi Badenoch has a serious problem on her hands.
Login
