• Donald Trump and Elon Musk endorsed Judge Brad Schimel in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.
• But the conservative lost to his liberal opponent, Judge Susan Crawford.
• Trump and Musk said they secured a more important win over Wisconsin's requirements for voter ID.

President Donald Trump's and Elon Musk's preferred candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court race lost, but both men say they scored a big victory anyway.

The Republican campaign in Wisconsin did result in changes to the state's voter ID laws. On Tuesday, voters in Wisconsin approved an amendment to the state's constitution requiring voters to use photo identification.

"Democrats fought hard against this, presumably so they can CHEAT. This is a BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS, MAYBE THE BIGGEST WIN OF THE NIGHT," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday.

"This was the most important thing," Musk wrote on X on Wednesday morning, referencing the changes to Wisconsin's constitution.

Trump and Musk had endorsed conservative Judge Brad Schimel, who lost to liberal Dane County Judge Susan Crawford.

"I expected to lose, but there is value to losing a piece for a positional gain," Musk said in a subsequent post on X early on Wednesday.

As of press time, Trump has not commented publicly on the outcome of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Wisconsin's Supreme Court has a 4-3 liberal majority. A Schimel win would have resulted in an ideological realignment of the court's bench.

"For State Supreme Court, make sure to Vote for America First Patriot, Brad Schimel, against Susan Crawford, a Radical Left Liberal, with a History of letting child molesters and rapists off easy," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday.

Aside from endorsing Schimel, Musk's super PAC, America PAC, spent over $12 million supporting him. Musk also offered $100 to Wisconsin voters who signed a petition opposing "activist judges."

On Sunday, Musk held a town hall in Wisconsin where he handed $1 million checks to two supporters. Musk initially said the $1 million was a lottery prize for signing his petition. He later said the payment was compensation for the winners to be spokespeople at the event.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court election is the most expensive judicial race in US history.

In the run-up to the vote, Trump and Musk both said enshrining voter ID requirements in Wisconsin's constitution is just as important as securing a conservative majority on Wisconsin's Supreme Court.

"There is a very important Referendum (Question 1) on the Ballot to amend the State Constitution to require VOTER ID," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday, where he asked voters to support the amendment and Schimel.

At Musk's town hall on Sunday, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said his personal stake in the vote boiled down to two issues — the judicial majority on Wisconsin's Supreme Court bench and whether the state will require voter ID at polls.

Musk said these decisions could "affect the entire destiny of humanity" since they could influence which party controls Congress.

"Whichever party controls the House, you know, to a significant degree, controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization," Musk said on Sunday.

Musk has been a big part of the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency — but he's also been campaigning hard for the GOP. During Trump's run, Musk gave rally speeches at GOP events, and spent at least $277 million to support Trump and other GOP candidates.

The White House and Musk did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

• Northvolt filed for bankruptcy last month after burning through $15 billion.
• The Swedish EV battery maker was considered Europe's best hope for a homegrown battery manufacturer.
• Europe's battery industry is likely to be dominated by Chinese companies, with CATL eyeing expansion.

Europe's best hope for an EV battery manufacturer reached the end of the road last month.

Northvolt, the EV battery maker founded by two former Tesla executives and backed by the likes of Volkswagen and Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy after running out of cash.

The startup's demise after burning through $15 billion poses big questions for European policymakers — and leaves the field open for a Chinese battery titan to continue its global expansion.

CATL, the world's biggest battery producer, is already building three factories in Europe — in Germany, Hungary, and a joint venture with Jeep owner Stellantis in Spain. A spokesperson told Business Insider the company was considering expanding its manufacturing facilities further, in line with market demand.

CATL is also embarking on a hiring spree, recruiting about 1,800 employees at its German plant and planning to add more than 1,300 staff in Hungary by the end of the year.

As scrutiny over Chinese firms operating in Europe escalates in recent years, manufacturers including CATL and BYD have sought to localize production by building factories in European countries.

In CATL's case, the push to blend in reportedly included adding bratwurst and German barbecue to the menu at its German factory.

As well as building batteries, CATL is also looking at ways to recycle them.

A spokesperson told BI the company was "exploring strategic partnerships" with local firms to build a battery recycling network in Europe.

The European scale-up comes at a key moment for CATL, which has grown rapidly thanks to enormous state support and China's stranglehold over the global battery supply chain.

CATL is gearing up to go public in Hong Kong in a $5 billion offering and recently struck a deal with Chinese EV maker Nio to develop a battery-swapping network for electric vehicles in China.

The demise of Northvolt, widely seen as the continent's most promising battery startup, has left Europe's home-grown battery industry struggling to compete.

"Northvolt bit off more than it could chew," said Sam Jaffe, principal at 1019 Technologies, which advises companies on the battery industry. "They were trying to build six gigafactories in different parts of the world all at once, and they should have just concentrated on just one."

Europe's battery blues

Jaffe said Northvolt's investors were expecting unrealistic "venture-like" returns from the capital-intensive business.

While Northvolt's failure won't be a "death knell" for Europe's efforts to build EV batteries, he said ownership of the continent's battery industry was likely to be dominated by Chinese and Asian companies.

That prospect has sparked some soul-searching in Europe. Julia Poliscanova, a senior director of the Transport & Environment thinktank, said the European Union had failed to turn world-class battery R&D into a successful manufacturing sector: "Northvolt is just a symptom of the problems that we have in Europe."

She said the EU should learn from the "Chinese playbook" as it looks to build a competitor to CATL, sticking with consistent EV policies and overhauling trade rules that allow Chinese battery makers to import their products at a 1.3% tariff.

Poliscanova also urged Europe to explore measures that would force Chinese manufacturers to partner with European rivals and share vital knowledge if they want to do business on the continent.

China adopted similar joint-venture rules with its auto industry in the 1990s. They proved a powerful tool in helping Chinese carmakers catch up with Western competitors.

"The Chinese didn't wake up being good at battery manufacturing — they've simply been doing it for a lot more years," said Poliscanova. "The problem is that today in Europe, we don't have all those years to learn and fail."

Shifting geopolitical tensions are likely to only make Europe a more tempting target for Chinese firms.

China's EV giants such as BYD have been locked out of the US by high tariffs, but are expanding rapidly in Europe due to less restrictive trade barriers. Jaffe said the battery industry could follow a similar playbook.

"I think we're going to see a clear demarcation between the North American battery industry, which is going to be mostly Korean partnerships with local companies, and the European battery industry, which is going to be more partnerships with Chinese manufacturers," he said.

• Traci Szemkus, 47, got pregnant with her daughter, Lyrik, when she was 19.
• She went on welfare, including food stamps and childcare.
• She vowed to become a doctor by 25, and did. Now, she and Lyrik run a company.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Traci Szemkus, cofounder of WorkPlay Branding. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I grew up in a very small, tight-knit farming community in Iowa. That's where I learned about hard work. Farmers never stop — they're always working to achieve more, a lesson I've carried into my life.

Being in a small town was dull during my rebellious teenage years, so I went to live near family in Chicago. There, I started a relationship that didn't amount to much but got my daughter, Lyrik, out of it. I was 19 when I found out I was pregnant.

I returned home to Iowa, and everyone around me was ashamed of my pregnancy. I didn't feel that, though. I was determined to prove them wrong. I enrolled in college and completed as many credits as I could before Lyrik was born. I planned to complete the rest of my degree online or through more flexible classes.

I vowed to become a doctor when I was on food stamps

Being a young mom was financially very difficult. I used to go to the grocery store and push a cart around while I ate fruit to fill my belly. Then, I'd abandon the cart and leave the store because I couldn't afford groceries.

Eventually, I got government assistance, including food stamps and day care. I would shop at night so fewer people would see me using food stamps. I was self-conscious but determined this wouldn't be my life.

One day, I was waiting in line at the food pantry. I had a voucher for food and wrote on the back, "I'm going to be a doctor by the time I'm 25." I don't know why I did it — maybe it was a cry for help — but I completed my doctorate two weeks after my 26th birthday. It wasn't quite what I'd written, but it was close enough.

I felt like I'd paid back my welfare through taxes

I had planned to become a chiropractor. During my doctorate program, I met many wonderful friends and my husband, who adopted Lyrik when she was 3. I also realized that I wasn't interested in being a chiropractor. I was much more drawn to the marketing side of business. So, my husband and I opened a chiropractic clinic: I did the marketing while he saw patients. We were profitable within three months.

When I was on welfare, I added up all the benefits I'd received. It was about $20,000. I vowed to pay them back one day. During the second year of operating our clinic, our tax bill was almost exactly that amount. I felt like I'd cleared my debt to the government.

I started placing recent graduates in new clinics and then selling those clinics to those doctors. It was lucrative, and today my net worth is in the seven figures. Still, it feels strange to call myself a millionaire. I have more security than I used to and don't need to struggle to survive. But I don't feel like I've made it yet or like I can coast.

Having Lyrik young shaped my success

Lyrik has always been at my side as I built my businesses. When she was little, we used to drive around listening to CDs about business and goal setting. I think she absorbed that because she's always been naturally business-minded. She started working in the clinics when she was 16, and we would always talk about business over dinner, to the annoyance of my husband and son.

A few years ago, Lyrik and I went into business together more formally. We founded WorkPlay branding, a visual marketing company that brought together her skills as a creator and my business network. Last year, our company broke $1 million in revenue.

Lyrik and I work so well together because we trust each other implicitly. We know neither of us is going to give up or leave. If someone is sick or needs a break, the other will step in without question. In 2021, I was out of work for about six months due to a brain tumor. Lyrik took over during that time and tripled our revenue.

I might have been a mediocre person if I hadn't gotten pregnant so young, but having Lyrik thrust me into a higher level of operating. I don't do anything that's not intentional. Now, seeing her as a professional and running a business with her has been one of the greatest gifts of my life.

• Denise Richards says she and her ex-husband, Charlie Sheen, approach parenting very differently.
• "I parent my way. He parents his way, and there was no co-parenting," Richards said.
• Despite that, she always wanted Sheen to have a constant presence in their two daughters' lives.

Denise Richards says that she and her ex, Charlie Sheen, each have their own methods of raising their two daughters.

On Tuesday's episode of the "Whine Down with Jana Kramer" podcast, Richards spoke about the dynamics of her relationship with Sheen.

"Truthfully, it wasn't co-parenting. I parent my way. He parents his way, and there was no co-parenting," the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" star told podcast host Jana Kramer.

Richards shares two daughters — Sami and Lola, both grown up now — with Sheen, whom she was married to from 2002 to 2006.

Richards said that while there is "no discord" between her and her ex-husband, they are not exactly close.

"I have kids with him, and I'm not really — I'm friendly with Charlie, but I wish we were friends and that we could talk all the time and be able to be there really for each other with our girls," she said. "But that's just not the relationship we have. Maybe one day."

Despite that, it was always important to her that Sheen maintained a constant presence in her daughters' lives.

"I was always an advocate of wanting everything to be great and be friends and blend the family because he had two boys with his wife after me," Richards said.

"I just didn't want the girls to feel like they had to choose sides. I've always wanted him to be there for all the birthday parties and holidays, and I always invited him and sometimes he would come. And I think it's good for the kids to see that too," she continued.

Richards also said she "never talked bad about him in front of the kids," which was sometimes "hard to do."

She recalled how Sheen didn't give her a heads-up that he was going public with his HIV diagnosis so she could speak to their daughters first. Richards added that she picked her kids up from school earlier that day so they wouldn't learn about the news from their friends.

"I had to have a conversation about that," she said. "And it was kind of hard to explain to them what it was. That was the only time I can remember. There's been a few things that I've had to have conversations with. But for the most part, I really try to shelter them from a lot of stuff."

Richards isn't the only famous figure who has spoken about her experience raising kids with her ex.

"The Hills" actor Kristin Cavallari told Business Insider in 2020 that she takes her emotions out of the situation while co-parenting with her ex-husband, former NFL player Jay Cutler.

Cavallari said that her focus is on their three kids: "And so I'm removing any of my emotions or feelings and just thinking about them and putting them first."

In 2020, Khloé Kardashian said she and her ex, Tristan Thompson, quarantined together during the pandemic in order to spend time with their daughter, True.

Angela Marie Christian, a life coach who advises single moms, previously told BI that she learned three tips from co-parenting with her ex-partners. These include setting aside time to discuss their child's well-being, planning schedules out clearly so the child knows how they'll spend their weekends or holidays, and being respectful to each other.

Representatives for Richards and Sheen did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent by BI outside regular hours.

• I tried Tinder's new AI chatbot to practice my charm. I can't take it seriously.
• Users try to flirt their way to a date, with AI dishing out feedback and ratings.
• Match's new CEO said last month Tinder and Hinge feel too much like "a numbers game."

In a craft store in Lahore, I reached for the same quirky handmade lamp as Isabella, a scientist "with a spark of curiosity."

Sitting in my Singapore office — not on a K-Drama stage, or in Pakistan — I played Tinder's new game to practice my charm.

Called The Game Game, this new in-app feature uses speech-to-speech AI technology to create "over-the-top, meet-cute scenarios," Tinder said in a statement on Monday.

Users try to flirt their way to a date, while AI dishes out real-time feedback and rates their game. I used my editor's US phone in a private room so my colleagues didn't overhear me talking to Isabella.

Flirty wins earned me points with labels like "delightful," "charming," and "victory." Rack up enough, and it'll secure you a date with the AI.

I was given about five minutes to flirt in each scenario. And I had 10 scenarios to play with in the free account.

The game is powered by OpenAI's GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini, and Tinder says your awkward pickup lines won't be used to train any AI models. It's only available to iOS users in the US for a limited time.

A spokesperson for Tinder's parent company, Match Group, said the company is using the game "to learn and explore what future rollouts in other markets might look like."

The game comes as Match struggles with lower user numbers. The company's new CEO has said he wants to bring the focus back to users.

"This project gave us a chance to experiment with how AI can make dating a little more fun and a little less intimidating," said Alex Osborne, Match's senior director of product innovation.

Match's stock is down 10.8% in the last year, while rival Bumble is down 61%.

I tried flirting (and failing) with Tinder's AI

My first scenario was labeled "Easy," and I brought my usual self to the scenario.

Isabella started off strong, asking what brought me here. I complimented the lamp and said I liked crafts. I asked her what her favorite item in the store was, and she launched into a monologue about a handwoven carpet.

Without a visual, it was hard to relate. And she sounded robotic.

Hoping to steer flirtier, I asked what else she liked. She listed pottery, then asked if I was into it. I said yes — cue her AI-generated wisdom about the joy of surrounding yourself with things you make with your own hands.

I took my shot: "What do you like making with your hands?" (Cringe.)

Her answer: Custom lab notebooks and DIY molecular models. Hot.

I feigned interest, the conversation fizzled, and I didn't score a date. Tinder handed me some generic flirting tips, like "ask more about her favorite crafts." Thanks, AI wingman.

Next, a shot at romance with Jackson, a photographer at a lively block party. We were manning the grill together — prime flirting conditions, and I dialed it up.

When Jackson suggested a "nice, sweet tea to cool off," I leaned in: "I've never tried that… but I do want someone to cool me off."

"Well, now, a glass of sweet tea is perfect," he said. (Dodge. But Tinder awarded me points.)

So I upped the ante. When he asked about challenges I've faced, I dropped: "Not being able to keep my eyes off you."

His reaction? "Well, now, that sure is kind of you to say." Then he suggested we find a comfy spot to chat.

If a real person said that, they'd either be deeply into me or deeply uncomfortable. But Tinder? It just kept handing out points — until I actually scored a date.

So, the lesson? Be bold, be flirty, and apparently, AI won't call you out for being too much.

Lastly, I stood in line at a food truck in Venice. Paisley, an architect, struck up a conversation with me about culinary adventures.

This time, I was the human equivalent of dry toast.

Paisley kicked things off, raving about a truffle mushroom pasta —"a masterpiece."

Me? "Never tried it."

She asked what cuisine I liked. I hit her with the dullest answer possible: "Chicken."

Paisley chirped: "Versatile and always delicious!" (In real life, this is where I'd get ghosted.)

Still, she pressed on. "Have you tried any Indian or Thai chicken dishes?"

"No."

She tried again. "Do you like exploring new recipes?"

"I don't cook."

At this point, I was sure she'd give up. But nope: "Let's plan a little food adventure! What do you think?"

"…Okay."

No surprise — I didn't score a date. But Paisley's enthusiasm never wavered. No matter how boring I got, she stayed locked in.

Tinder's AI might handle flirty, but it refuses to acknowledge flop energy.

All in all, I couldn't take this game seriously.

• Trump's Big Law executive orders and deals take aim at their pro bono practices.
• Big Law firms often lend legal firepower to civil liberties organizations suing the government.
• Viewed with other executive orders, Trump is trying to deeply reshape the legal profession, experts say.

With the fourth executive order, Donald Trump's plans came into focus.

The president's executive order last week targeting Jenner & Block specifically called out the Big Law firm's "powerful pro bono practices," which he said "undermine justice and the interests of the United States."

And Trump's deals with other Big Law firms — Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps — hemmed in their pro bono practices, which Trump directed toward his own policy and political priorities.

The headlines for each of Trump's attacks on law firms focused on how they have all represented clients or hired employees he doesn't like.

But more recently, the president has explicitly criticized the firms' lawsuits against his administration's priorities — often through pro bono representation.

In their lawsuits fighting Trump's executive orders, Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block have each said their pro bono work runs counter to Trump's interests.

Perkins Coie — along with Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign — represents transgender service members seeking to overturn Trump's executive order barring them from serving in the US military. WilmerHale is representing a group of inspectors general who say Trump improperly fired them. Jenner & Block says that it has "been rated the #1 law firm for pro bono work by The American Lawyer for 12 of the past 15 years" and is representing a slate of clients suing over Trump's executive orders targeting refugees and transgender people.

Trump's executive orders and deals are not just a backward-looking exercise to exact revenge for being on the wrong side of indictments and lawsuits, but part of an effort to hobble his administration's opponents in the courtroom now, according to Raymond Brescia, a scholar of public interest law at Albany Law School.

If successful, Trump could convince Big Law firms they should stay out of the fight.

"These are very fast-moving, resource-intensive cases," Brescia told Business Insider. "So it would absolutely kneecap the ability of communities who want to challenge some of the Trump administration policies if private law firms were on the sidelines."

A chilling effect

Since taking office in January, Trump has issued a blitz of executive orders, seeking to rapidly change the government's priorities and cull the federal workforce.

Around 150 lawsuits have been filed seeking to halt those orders, according to a database maintained by Law360.

Many of those lawsuits have been filed by civil liberties organizations, affected individuals, government employee unions, and Democratic state attorneys general.

And many of them have been supported by Big Law firms, which lend legal firepower through their pro bono practices.

The slow drip of executive orders may make Big Law firms more selective about their pro bono cases, Brescia said.

Trump has targeted a new firm every few days, stripping employees of security clearances and barring them from entering government buildings. His targets sometimes correlate with a list of 20 Big Law firms his handpicked Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chair has targeted over diversity initiatives.

No firm wants to be in the crosshairs next, Brescia said. They may think twice about partnering with a civil liberties organization like the ACLU or taking on cases that will anger Trump — like fighting deportations or representing government employees fired by DOGE, he said.

"All of those organizations and everyone in between often relies upon support and assistance from volunteer lawyers," Brescia said. "That could be lawyers at a white-shoe law firm in Manhattan or lawyers in a small town who donate a portion of their time to the local nonprofit."

The deals Trump announced with Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps demonstrate how Trump seeks to reshape Big Law's stance toward pro bono work.

Paul Weiss agreed to dedicate $40 million in pro bono legal services "to support the Administration's initiatives." Skadden said it would put $100 million in pro bono work toward assisting veterans and public servants, combating antisemitism, and "ensuring fairness in our Justice System."

Trump's orders and statements announcing his deals criticize each firm for their clients and employees. Covington & Burling worked with Jack Smith, who prosecuted Trump as a Justice Department special counsel. Perkins Coie represented Hillary Clinton. Paul Weiss hired Mark Pomerantz, who was involved in another prosecution against Trump. Jenner & Block hired Andrew Weissman, a deputy to Robert Mueller. And WilmerHale was the professional home of Mueller himself.

Using government power to punish a law firm based on its clients runs counter to the way the legal system is supposed to work, argue Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, the two conservative legal superstars representing WilmerHale.

"The First Amendment prohibits such coercion," they wrote in the firm's lawsuit.

Jenner & Block, represented by the elite law firm Cooley LLP, argued it had no choice but to sue to stop the "unconstitutional" executive order.

"To do anything else would mean compromising Jenner's ability to zealously advocate for its clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion," they wrote in the lawsuit.

So far, law firms that have fought back against Trump's targeted executive orders have been winning. Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and Jenner & Block all obtained restraining orders that block most of Trump's demands.

But Trump may have succeeded to some degree in pressuring the legal profession. None of the nation's biggest firms has agreed to sign onto an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie ahead of the Wednesday deadline, according to The Financial Times.

Even if federal judges pause the executive orders before reaching a final ruling, they could still potentially scare away business for the law firms, according to Walter Olson, a Cato Institute fellow who writes about the legal profession.

"You are in upside-down land in which you may never survive long enough to get a final court ruling because your firm has been destroyed," he said.

Bending the entire legal profession to his will

In the context of other actions taken by the White House, the executive orders show how Trump wants to pressure the entire legal profession, according to Brescia.

Trump signed a separate executive order telling the Justice Department to flag law firms bringing "frivolous" lawsuits against his political priorities so he could consider more executive orders targeting the attorneys.

He also signed an order that curtailed the scope of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which forgave federal student loan debt for people who work for public interest causes for 10 years. Under the broad language of Trump's order, loan forgiveness may not apply to attorneys who serve as a public defender, work at the ACLU, or work in a state attorney general's office suing the Trump administration, Brescia said.

Viewed together, Trump is trying to bend the entire legal profession toward his own priorities, Brescia said.

"When you see it all together, I think a picture absolutely comes together that this is a multi-pronged attack on the institutions that have stood up to the Trump administration," Brescia said.

The White House didn't immediately return a request for comment from BI.

The deals Trump made with Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps have a major problem, Brescia said. Unlike a judge-approved settlement agreement, they have no binding power. If Trump is unsatisfied with the law firms at any time, he could impose another executive order targeting them. The law firms can only feel secure so long as they are in Trump's good graces.

That leaves a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads if they take on a client or make an argument that the Trump administration or Department of Justice doesn't like, Brescia said.

Clients who face criminal cases or regulatory oversight may not believe they're getting the best representation, he said.

"What client wants a lawyer who's going to be afraid of the government?" he said.

• Actor Val Kilmer died on Tuesday in Los Angeles at age 65.
• He was known for starring alongside Tom Cruise in the 1986 film "Top Gun," which became a cult classic.
• Fellow celebrities and friends are paying tribute to the actor on social media.

Celebrities are paying tribute to Val Kilmer after he died at age 65 on Tuesday.

His daughter confirmed to The New York Times that pneumonia was the cause of the actor's death.

Kilmer was previously diagnosed with throat cancer in 2014 but recovered. However, due to a tracheostomy, his voice was permanently damaged.

He was known for his roles in 1986's "Top Gun," 1991's "The Doors," and 1995's "Batman Forever."

Following the news of Kilmer's death, friends and fellow celebrities shared their reactions on social media.

Josh Brolin shared a heartfelt message to Kilmer

Actor Josh Brolin, who portrays Thanos in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, shared a heartfelt message to Kilmer on Instagram.

"See ya, pal. I'm going to miss you. You were a smart, challenging, brave, uber-creative firecracker. There's not a lot left of those. I hope to see you up there in the heavens when I eventually get there. Until then, amazing memories, lovely thoughts," Brolin wrote in his caption.

Michael Mann posted a throwback photo of Kilmer

"While working with Val on 'Heat' I always marvelled at the range, the brilliant variability within the powerful current of Val's possessing and expressing character. After so many years of Val battling disease and maintaining his spirit, this is tremendously sad news," filmmaker Michael Mann wrote in his caption.

Mann worked with Kilmer in 1995's crime drama film "Heat," which also starred Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino.

Josh Gad thanked Kilmer for being a part of many movies from his childhood

Josh Gad, best known for voicing Olaf in Disney's "Frozen" franchise and for playing Elder Arnold Cunningham in the Broadway musical "The Book of Mormon," shared a tribute to Kilmer on Instagram along with a photo of the "Top Gun" star.

"RIP Val Kilmer. Thank you for defining so many of the movies of my childhood. You truly were an icon," Gad wrote in his caption.

Matthew Modin shared an anecdote about meeting Val Kilmer in 1985

"RIP Val Kilmer. If it wasn't for our chance encounter at the Source in 1985, I may never have been cast in FULL METAL JACKET. Thanks, Val," Matthew Modin, who also starred in "Stranger Things," wrote on X.

Accompanying Modin's post was a video telling how his bumping into Kilmer in a restaurant on Sunset Boulevard set off a chain of events that eventually culminated in him getting cast in Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket."

Guns N' Roses guitarist Slash posted a photo of Kilmer from the film "Tombstone"

In the 1993 film, Kilmer plays the American outlaw Doc Holliday.

"RIP #ValKilmer," Slash wrote in his caption.

• When I was younger, my friend group was much more fluid, and I had fewer boundaries.
• Now that I'm a parent, I'm more discerning about who I let in my inner circle.
• I want to model healthy boundaries for my children.

I've always been a people pleaser, and once I flew the coop, I also became an adventure seeker.

In my 20s, I enjoyed living in other places, traveling the country, and meeting new people with different backgrounds and wide, varying perspectives on life, politics, and faith. Because of my nomadic lifestyle and audacious personality, I would quickly and easily allow people into my inner circle like water flowing in, uninhibited.

I had an insatiable desire for unique experiences and a multifaceted community, no matter the cost. Throughout that time, I found myself excusing behaviors in friends that hurt me or others around them, and I had a hard time speaking up when I should have because of my people-pleasing habit.

I didn't learn how to create healthy boundaries from my parents

I wasn't raised in a household that modeled healthy boundaries or welcomed difficult conversations. I was taught to be amenable and not to question authority, even when injustice was being done. Thus, I wasn't equipped to deal with certain interpersonal challenges when they inevitably arrived in adulthood. I continued the pattern of sweeping big, important things under the rug for the sake of not ruffling feathers.

Through therapy, I've learned how to set boundaries in both new and old relationships, and I hope to pass these hard-learned lessons down to my daughters, even from a young age. For example, I estranged my father six years ago, and I've allowed ideological tension to break yearslong friendships in order to welcome more peace and ease into my everyday life and, in turn, open the door to more time, energy, and space for new relationships to take form.

As I near 40, I'm being more thoughtful about who I spend time with

I'm also close to 40 now and have become more discerning about who I let into my inner circle because of my daughters, those little sponges who are incessantly collecting information about the world around them and themselves. Yes, it's important for our kids to be exposed to all different walks of life, but I think it's also important for the next generation to be selective of who they surround themselves with — both online and offline — which is why I've taken my job as their role model very seriously during these formative years of their lives.

When we interact with other families, either through school or other celebratory occasions, I like to remind my children that other people do things differently and that that doesn't mean that they're better or we're better, and that's OK. That's actually good because it shows my children everyone has their own volition and can choose their own path that feels right for themselves and their families. Lately, this has looked like an explanation of why some kids go to after-care, and she doesn't — their parents work until 5 p.m. — or why some friends celebrate Hanukkah instead of Christmas.

In the last couple of years, my husband and I have become more settled and focused on laying down roots in our new city, where we hope to stay for a beat or two and continue fostering deep, meaningful relationships. I've whittled my inner circle group to folks who root for me and whom I root for — reciprocal relationships. I've also added distance between old friends and acquaintances who have unaligned beliefs and values to my own.

I've also become more reflective about the benefits and drawbacks of certain friendships, and even though my children may not be fully aware, my hope is that, through my example, they will one day be able to recognize that they can be deliberate about their choices, and they should be, in order to protect themselves — in order to protect their hearts.

• Ilya Gaysinskiy, chief technology officer at Point72, joined from Goldman Sachs in September 2024.
• His first priority is to hire more talent by building out its Poland hub and a new India office.
• In his first interview since joining Steve Cohen's fund, Gaysinskiy shares plans for talent and AI.

It's not surprising that billionaire and New York Mets owner Steve Cohen likes to win. Upon meeting Cohen, Ilya Gaysinskiy's biggest takeaway was how key technology is to his $39 billion hedge fund's playbook.

Gaysinskiy, a former Goldman Sachs leader who most recently oversaw one of the bank's largest technology groups, was intrigued and excited about the prospect of influencing Point72 as its chief technology officer. What won him over, though, was Cohen's "earnest outlook" that just having good technology isn't going to cut it, he told Business Insider.

"This is more about how you actually fundamentally grow and transform the business, and how fundamental it is to the future of this industry," he added.

Point72 and its multistrategy rivals, all of which combine teams across the world trading different strategies into a single portfolio, have experienced explosive growth over the last few years as their steady returns lured in billions from investors. In his first interview since joining the hedge fund last September, Gaysinskiy told BI about his big plans to ramp up Point72's tech organization to meet and continue to drive the firm's expansion. Gaysinskiy formerly held a number of tech leadership positions at Goldman Sachs in core engineering and its consumer business.

His first priority is to hire more talent by building out two tech hubs abroad and launching a college recruiting program to attract younger talent. He's kicking off a multi-year program aimed at improving the developer experience at Point72, an effort he drove at his former employer. The Columbia University alum, who spent 14 years at Goldman Sachs, also told us his plans to streamline parts of the software development process using automation and generative AI.

From Poland to India

Gaysinskiy has his sights set on India. In 2021, Point72 expanded into Warsaw, an office that now has more than 200 employees, many of which are technologists. Now the CTO wants to establish an Asian tech hub in Bengaluru.

"As Point72 continues to strengthen its presence as a global firm, so too does our technology organization," Gaysinskiy said. Establishing a "follow-the-sun support model" will be essential for meeting the rising demand for a connected financial system that never sleeps, he said.

He pointed to the huge talent pool of engineers in India — where big banks like JPMorgan have large tech footprints, as do fellow hedge funds Millennium Management and Qube Research and Technologies. Point72 is in the early stages of that expansion, but Gaysinskiy said the goal is to have all technology disciplines represented in the India office, he said.

Gaysinskiy said he's hiring across the spectrum, but he highlighted a "huge focus" on data, AI, and cybersecurity. The firm's career page currently has more than 70 open tech roles for software engineering and technical lead positions, mostly based in Warsaw, Stamford, and New York. Some positions offer a base annual salary of up to $300,000.

In addition to expanding its tech reach globally, Gaysinskiy is also going after talent earlier in their careers. In his first few months at the fund, he oversaw Point72's kick-off of its first college recruiting program specifically for technology.

"Point72 is very well known for attracting and actually building talent in many ways, and I wanted to make sure that is true not just of the investment professionals and PMs, but also in technology," Gaysinskiy said.

He pointed to the firm's ultra-competitive analyst training program and said this tech-focused version is a continuation of that development initiative. Gaysinskiy said he's eager to inject the firm with the energy typical of younger talent, their fresh skills in programming languages, engineering practices, and data science fundamentals, and for the opportunity to mold them.

"Setting a culture where engineers have the freedom to innovate, express their creativity toward the common purpose of building amazing solutions is super important," he said.

Gaysinskiy is surveying the firm's tech population to get their input on their desired tooling and apps, how existing software development processes could be improved, and the environments they work in, such as the public cloud.

One question asked respondents to, given a certain amount of money, allocate budget dollars to what they thought was important. He plans to do it annually.

"The idea is we want to actually start a systematic program where we actually are very data-driven around what needs improvement, what's working well," Gaysinskiy said.

AI and the developer experience

The hedge fund is after more than just budding technologists. One of Gaysinskiy's first big hires was Vladimir Zhukov, a machine learning whiz who will run the firm's AI and data platform.

Before joining in January, Zhukov led various AI and machine learning efforts at Goldman Sachs, Stripe, and Amazon Web Services.

Automation will be a key part of Gaysinskiy's strategy, given its potential to boost worker efficiency, reduce errors, and scale the business effectively.

"Ultimately, automation has the potential to free our developers to focus on higher-value, strategic work," he said.

Gaysinskiy has seen firsthand the power of AI-assisted coding. Even though Gaysinskiy considers himself a strong coder, he had a begrudging realization in the last few weeks that "AI is starting to get better at this than me," he said, laughing.

The realization has got him excited to harness the power, he said, and make some big decisions on where to concentrate the firepower and what workflows should be transformed.

His advice to engineers working in or planning to work in Wall Street's tech ranks is to embrace the fact that the environment is constantly changing. This is especially true because, he said, the industry is ripe for AI disruption.

So much of the business is digitized, but the complexities of the business (from developing software for different financial instruments to the regulatory nuances of emerging markets) has largely held the industry back.

For engineers interested in applying technology to solve interesting problems, and particularly "where the AI disruption will occur, I think this actually would be an industry to watch," Gaysinskiy said.

• TJ Patel uses the 'door-in-the-face' technique to negotiate higher salaries in software engineering.
• The strategy involves making a high initial request and then a more reasonable follow-up.
• Patel secured offers $10,000 to $30,000 above initial proposals using this method.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with TJ Patel, a 27-year-old software engineer in Austin who asked that BI not name his employers. Business Insider has verified Patel's income and employment with documentation; the negotiations are based on his recollection of conversations during each hiring process. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I was a college senior when I learned the "door-in-the-face" technique from Robert Cialdini's book, "Influence." I used the strategy when I started applying for jobs, and it's helped me secure higher salaries in each job negotiation throughout my career.

I'm a software engineer, but this strategy could work for any industry. You only need data on typical salaries for a specific industry and an idea of the specific company's salary range.

The technique is simple

"Door in the face" is when someone asks for something big or unreasonable in an initial request and then follows up with what they actually want.

I decided to leverage "door in the face" after reading Cialdini's example about organizers asking for donations, where they start by asking for something quite large, which is almost certain to be turned down — the door slamming in your face.

Then they pivot to the smaller — and truly desired — ask, which suddenly seems more reasonable by comparison.

That's when it clicked for me: I could use this same principle in salary negotiations

The "door-in-the-face" strategy has a real risk: If you ask for too much, an employer might decide to walk away altogether.

I realized if I was willing to accept that possibility — and if I asked respectfully and backed up my request with evidence like competing offers or my past performance — then most reasonable employers would at least counter.

My logic was that if they're already at the point of wanting to hire me, they've invested time and resources into the process, so they might be open to adjusting their offer rather than starting over with a new candidate.

'Door in the face' has been crucial in all of my salary negotiations

Since reading "Influence," in every job offer I've gotten, I anchored the negotiation on a number much higher than the lowest I was willing to accept. Once they declined my high number, my follow-up request seemed more moderate, and employers were more willing to meet me in the middle.

Sometimes, I asked for the lower amount on the same call; other times, I'd wait a day to "think about it" before coming back with a more "reasonable" figure.

Either way, the technique helped me secure offers ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 more in total compensation than the employers' original proposal — and more than I expected based on public salary data.

Here's how the offer negotiation process went at each company I've worked at, including two Big Tech companies.

My first job: Junior developer at a staff augmentation firm

The initial offer: $55,000/year

What I asked for: $70,000/year

What I got: $65,000/year

I went through this interview process in December 2018. I was two weeks from my college graduation, so I interviewed with many companies and got several competing offers.

I told my recruiter about a $62,000 competing offer from a consultancy services company and said I wanted $70,000 from the staff augmentation firm.

The firm said $70,000 wasn't possible, so I asked for $65,000 — still $10,000 above their original offer — and they agreed.

My 2nd job: Software engineer at a health benefits company

The initial offer: $65,000/year

What I asked for: $90,000/year

What I got: $80,000/year

In 2019, the staff augmentation firm assigned me to be part of a major health benefits company project as a third-party contractor. After nine months, the manager at the health benefits company wanted to bring me on as a full-time employee.

The manager initially offered me $65,000 to match my current pay. I aimed high and asked for $90,000, emphasizing that I was already working as a team lead and had been recognized as a top performer.

I had data on the company's salary range for that specific job title, which I got by asking full-time employees of the company. They got that information from internal job portals.

The manager said they couldn't do $90,000, but we eventually agreed on $80,000 in total yearly comp — $15,000 above their initial offer.

My 3rd job: Senior software engineer at a compliance company

The initial offer: $88,000/year

What I asked for: $100,000/year

What I got: $100,000/year

In 2021, I received a job offer from a compliance company in Austin for $88,000 a year and another offer from a different company in Cincinnati for $115,000 a year. I told the hiring manager at the compliance company that I wanted to accept their offer, but it wouldn't make sense to reject a $115,000-a-year offer.

I asked them to bump it to at least $100,000 and shared my other offer letter without being asked to ensure there was no doubt about it and save me any potential back-and-forth negotiations.

They agreed, and I took their offer since I wanted to move to Austin.

My 4th job: Senior software engineer at a Magnificent 7 company

The initial offer: $175,000/year

What I asked for: $240,000/ year

What I got: $204,000/year

When I applied at a Magnificent 7 company after a recruiter found me on LinkedIn, I asked for a compensation package of $240,000 yearly. The recruiter said they couldn't go that high since the software engineer pay band for my level didn't allow that.

I interviewed for a higher-level role to get the compensation I wanted, but the hiring manager placed me at a level below that based on my interview performance.

He wanted to hire me, so I asked for the max pay band for that level and a promotion path, which involved completing a series of projects within my first year. He agreed, and that's how I got $204,000.

My current job: Senior member of technical staff at a Big Tech firm

The initial offer: $190,000/ year

What I asked for: $250,000/year

What I got: $223,000/year

During my first communication with a Big Tech firm recruiter in 2024, I asked for $250,000 in total compensation. A few days later, the recruiter returned and said they couldn't do that, and the max was $190,000.

I said I didn't want to proceed with the interview process, and then, a few days later, the recruiter told me they could do $200,000. I accepted that.

In the meantime, I got a verbal offer from a high-growth startup for $250,000. During the final offer process at the Big Tech firm, I asked them to bump the pay to $250,000 since I had a competing offer. I waited for the recruiter to meet me at $250,000 and reiterated my competing offer.

The recruiter followed up with me every several days to see if I would go lower. I held firm. They offered me $223,000, and I accepted since the Big Tech firm was more stable than the startup.

Once you understand 'door in the face,' you can use it in many ways

I've also used this technique in my work life when being asked about project deadlines.

If management pushes an aggressive deadline, I usually counter with something that's 20% longer than I expect it to be. This makes it easier to meet in the middle and align on a deadline. It sounds pretty simple, but I don't see many people using these strategies in the corporate world.

I expect my current Big Tech company to be my last corporate stop. I plan to stay here until the business I'm building in my free time takes off. I'll use these techniques aggressively if I enter the corporate workforce again.

• Young people are flocking to search funds, which seek to buy and grow small businesses.
• The model is popular with MBAs and young professionals looking to test their entrepreneurial mettle.
• The trend comes amid growing job insecurity for white-collar workers.

Just two weeks ago, Adam Froendt was a vice president of private equity and junior capital at Churchill Asset Management, a private capital affiliate of insurance giant TIAA's asset manager Nuveen.

Not yet 30, he had been promoted three times in his eight years in the industry, closing more than 60 middle-market private equity deals and 30 fund investments.

Last month, he quit that promising job to run a business. Now, he just needs to find one to run.

Froendt is one of a growing number of young people looking to test their entrepreneurial mettle through the world of so-called search funds. Sometimes described as mini-private equity or entrepreneurship through acquisition, a search fund is a small investment fund run by one or two people established to buy an existing small business. Once the business is purchased, the "searchers" run it with an eye toward creating value by streamlining operations and growing in size.

A 2024 Stanford Business School study found that search fund creation hit an all-time high in 2023, the latest year with data, with more than 90 first-time search funds raised. The strategy is particularly hot among young people, with Stanford finding that nearly 80% of first-time fundraisers in 2023 clocked in at 35 or younger, including many freshly graduated MBAs.

Some searchers, like Froendt, are so eager to be their own boss that they forgo outside investments — using their personal savings or their spouse's income to fund their entrepreneurial ambitions.

The boom in search funds is partly a response to a more complicated job market. White-collar jobs, once the obvious pathway to success, feel less stable. The dream of entrepreneurship is still alive and well, but tech startups can feel out of reach given the enormous shadow tech giants like Google and Amazon now cast over the economy.

Search funds and their various cousins offer a more realistic path to entrepreneurship.

"It's an alternative to the romantic entrepreneurial belief that you can only succeed by starting a company," Newton Campos, professor of entrepreneurship at IE University in Madrid and the founding partner of Newton Equity Partners, a recently launched fund that invests in search funds, told BI.

Froendt, who was bitten by the entrepreneurial bug running a car wash in high school, calls it "betting on himself."

"Traditionally entrepreneurship is thought of as "zero-to-one," involving brand new ideas starting at the ground floor," Froendt said. "When my eyes opened to the thought of being an entrepreneur in the context of an existing business, it immediately resonated with me."

Here's why some of the brightest young people are choosing to buy and operate unglamorous businesses like porta-potty rentals (yes, really) instead of climbing the corporate ladder.

How search funds work

The original search fund model, created in the 1980s, begins with an entrepreneur finding investors to fund their salary and expenses during a multi-year search for a business worth buying.

Froendt is taking a higher-risk and higher-reward path by self-funding his search, which takes, on average, two years. This model offers more flexibility over the businesses targeted, as well as more control and, eventually, more equity. As the founder of TrueGrit Capital, Froendt will be living off his "own personal balance sheet" (his savings) for up to two years.

The next step is to buy a successful small business, often from an owner-operator looking to retire. Froendt is looking for a company with between $3 million and $12 million in yearly revenue located between Maryland and South Carolina and in the healthcare services (think home health or care management), financial services (think insurance or accounting), or knowledge (think training or certification) industries.

The searchers' goals are to streamline operations, grow revenue, and create value for themselves and their shareholders. Most searchers plan to exit after five or more years, though some plan to hold indefinitely, which is what Froendt hopes to do.

The payout can be massive. According to the Stanford study, the average return on investment across the search funds studied was four and a half times invested capital, much higher than that of a traditional private equity firm.

There are many similarities to private equity, causing some to call the model "mini private equity." But Peter Kelly, a lecturer at Stanford Graduate School of Business who conducts the biannual survey and who ran a successful search fund business in home health care, said the terminology is inaccurate.

Kelly, who prefers the phrase entrepreneurship through acquisition, said that the model borrows from private equity financing but is fueled by the entrepreneur's desire to become an owner-manager.

The manager of a private equity fund gets paid through fees, incentivizing them to grow their assets under management, he said. A searcher is a direct investor (usually the largest) and gets paid by growing the business.

A.J. Wasserstein, a senior lecturer at the Yale School of Business put it this way: "Search is about jumping into a CEO role and leading and building. Private equity is about providing capital."

Why it's growing

Search funds were developed in the MBA world, and some of its popularity can be traced to an ever-growing list of courses about the model.

Campos counts 25 schools that teach it worldwide but said he expects the number to reach 100 in just a few years.

As interest in search funds grows, more firms, including Pacific Lake Partners and Relay Investments, have raised funds to invest in them. Campos founded his own investment fund earlier this year to help institutional investors find search funds in Europe and beyond.

Campos, who said he sold a rental apartment to invest, has made 18 personal investments in search funds, which have netted him a nice return.

Websites like SearchFunder, which connects investors with prospective searchers, and a series of how-to guides have made "searching" easier than ever.

"A Primer on Search Funds," updated every few years by Kelly and his Stanford colleagues, offers a very granular guide to the process, including sample legal documents to help close a deal. Campos called the document the "Bible" for the business model.

Harvard professors and entrepreneurs Rocye Yudkoff and Richard Ruback have published the "HBR Guide to Buying a Small Business," another essential read for anyone interested in the industry.

They've even turned it into a podcast, recently discussing how buying a successful small business can be less risky than betting on a career with a large corporation.

"That institution might be around forever, but that doesn't mean you're going to be around forever inside that institution," Yudkoff said.

Interest in search funds is only expected to continue as tech and consulting firms cut jobs and Wall Street hiring slows amid fears of an economic downturn.

Some 15% of the Harvard Business School's 2024 class that were looking for jobs did not receive any job offers after graduation, compared to only 4% in 2021.

Search funds have even become the target of online jokers. They are a recurring theme of Search Fund Stu, a financial meme maker on Instagram whose page is full of jokes about unsexy businesses like port-a-potty rentals and social media influencers promoting the model.

Search Fund Stu told BI that he is operating a business that he bought through a search fund, and asked to remain anonymous so he can post freely. One of his posts shows a photo of an uncomfortable-looking dog, labeled "MBA without a full-time offer" and riding a mini-horse labeled "a $500k search fund."

Alongside the jokers, there are lively discussions on "SMB Twitter/X," where current operators commiserate and gloat about the highs and lows of the model, spawning some bonafide influencer stars, like Codie Sanchez, with more than half a million X followers and 2 million Instagram followers.

Sanchez left a career as a private equity investor to buy and sell small businesses and teach the model to others through her media brand, Contrarian Thinking.

Froendt recently quit social media but said that Walker Deibel, another influencer and author of the guide "Buy Then Build," played a big part in his decision to try out the model.

Kelly warns, however, that people shouldn't jump into search funds because they see it online. They are still quite risky compared to climbing the corporate hierarchy, with 37% of funds raised failing to acquire a company and 31% of companies acquired either still operating or having exited at a loss, according to the Stanford survey.

"We try not to promote it in the classroom, and I don't care if my students do it, I just want them to learn about it," Kelly said.

"If no Stanford business school graduates did it one year, I might say, 'That's too bad,'" he said, adding: "If 30 graduates did it, that would make me nervous."

• Ben Baker returned his Cybertruck due to concerns about his daughter getting bullied.
• Baker's Tesla Model Y was keyed after the election and he told BI he was called a Nazi after getting the Cybertruck.
• He said while he believes protesting is a right, damaging property crosses the line.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Ben Baker, a Tesla owner living in Sacramento, California. Business Insider has verified his identity and former Cybertruck ownership. This story has been edited for length and clarity.

I have been a big tech guy as far as I can remember.

In my youth, I liked space, I liked the idea of SpaceX, and I liked all this stuff that Elon Musk was doing — and he seemed like a Democrat at the time. So, I was like, "Ok, this guy is awesome. He's doing all this cool stuff."

I was a Democrat my whole life but it wasn't too far back that I started to see the country getting more and more divided. It just felt like there was a huge push to run to as far left as people could go and that was a real shock to me being a Democrat. So I decided to switch to being an independent.

Somebody keyed my Tesla Model Y not too long ago after the election and I was like, "OK, that's no big deal." I live in California, which is a Democratic state, and so I kind of figured that there would be some of that stuff.

I didn't think it would be that big of a deal until I went and bought a Cybertruck.

My daughter asked me to return my Cybertruck

The first week I drove the Cybertruck, I took my family to Starbucks in it.

While my family went in, I took some cool pictures of it and was thinking, "This is super awesome."

As I was doing that, three people walked behind me and started looking at me and laughing. Then one of them called me a Nazi.

I go, "What are you talking about? I'm just buying this awesome truck. I think it's awesome. I'm not a Nazi." They were like, "Whatever, Nazi." I thought was weird.

Later on, one of my daughters told me that if I kept the Cybertruck, she was going to get bullied. She said, "Dad, under no circumstances keep this." My son, who leans right, said I should be able to drive the car I want and not have to worry about what people say.

But then I started thinking about if one of them is driving the Tesla Cybertruck down the road and people get out of the car and start vandalizing it in front of her or when she's driving it. My daughter is young, she's just had her license maybe a year. That's terrifying to me.

I'm a father and I have to do the right thing by my kids, which is to protect them. Maybe if I had all the money in the world to own the Cybertruck myself and then send them to school with another vehicle, then great, it would be on me if it got damaged.

But I can't have that happen to them in that vehicle. And who knows how far these guys will take it. They could harm my kids physically — and I couldn't live with myself if that happened. To me, it just wasn't worth seeing my daughter live in fear of the vehicle getting vandalized at their school.

I ended up taking it back and Tesla was really cool about it. I was able to unwind everything.

This doesn't feel like freedom to me

I feel like protesting has always been the American way.

I think people should have the right to protest — but they should have the right to protest without destruction. That's where the lines have been crossed.

Nothing that's happening right now is logical at all. It's all emotionally driven and ideologically cultivated. My kids are afraid of taking this nice vehicle that's fast, awesome, and cool and saves on gas. It's probably great for the environment.

It's a lot of money to invest in a vehicle and to buy one of these Cybertrucks, and I grew up from nothing. My mom was a single mother on government assistance so I had to work super hard to get where I'm at.

What's worse is that I'm a huge fan of this technology. I really want a Cybertruck. I think they're freaking awesome. They're really fun to drive. They're roomy and spacious. I wasn't buying it for other people. I already own a Tesla which I absolutely love, but I was buying the Cybertruck for me because I wanted to drive the future.

I thought this was the land of the free, but this doesn't sound like freedom at all to me.

When you start going down a pathway of saying, "This is what we think you should believe, and if you don't believe this, then we're going to come at you and we're going to take away what you've earned." That sounds like something else — and it doesn't sound good.

I don't think that hate and division are the way forward for this country or the world. As long as we keep doing that and trying to put people into boxes and categorize them and label them, that's just going to create more division and hate and it's super unfair.

We have got to find a way forward together that brings back basic human decency but also common sense so that we cheer for American companies to grow and thrive and help our pensions, versus cheering for the fall of an American company.

Buying a home is a high-stakes game, often with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line. Making a wrong decision can lead to foreclosure and bankruptcy; making the right decision can generate wealth that is passed down for generations.

When people are ready to settle down, they're confronted with all the usual dilemmas: whether to buy a home; where to buy a home; what kind of home to buy; and how much to spend. These highly emotional decisions are all more manageable using the lessons of behavioral economics, which I studied as an economist.

When I took a new tech job offer in 2017, it meant leaving San Diego for Seattle. As I set out to find a new home for myself, my husband, and my mom in my new city, I wanted to avoid getting caught up in the competitive pressure of beating out other buyers and making rash decisions that I might later regret. So I decided to divide my search into two phases. In the first, I would take my time getting to know the city and its various neighborhoods by renting a home. In the second, once I had a clear sense of my preferences, I would begin making offers on properties that met my criteria. By taking this approach, I hoped to avoid the pitfalls of hasty decision-making and make an intelligent, informed choice.

For about five months, I spent a great deal of time exploring the different neighborhoods and assessing their pros and cons. From historic homes dating back to the 19th century to midcentury modern homes from Seattle's post-World War II boom to modern new construction, there were plenty of options.

The most significant tradeoff to be made when choosing is location versus home size. I initially thought of a short commute and a large home as must-haves, but given my budget and the need to have space for three adults and three dogs, I had to sacrifice on the length of my commute. Many homebuyers make this same compromise. According to a Redfin survey, 89% of homebuyers would rather purchase a single-family home with a backyard than a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

Soon we focused our efforts on West Seattle, a neighborhood located on a peninsula across the sound from downtown. My commute to the office would take about 30 minutes each way by bus, where I could at least get some work done with the complimentary WiFi. This was a decent tradeoff, given that homes in West Seattle were about $100,000 less than homes closer to the downtown office.

Now in phase two, when I began viewing properties and making offers, I became hyperconscious of how my emotions might influence my decision-making. Common mistakes made by homebuyers include becoming too attached to a particular home, fixating on the list price instead of the market value, following the herd, and letting fatigue cloud judgment.

You must try to avoid falling in love too quickly with a home. Once you start picturing your future in a home, it can become challenging to walk away, and it can suck you into a fierce bidding war. Block out any and all thoughts about hosting holidays or your children playing in the backyard. Yes, it is a good idea to consider whether the home will suit you in the future, but if you become too attached to that future, you're working against yourself. People value a home more if they already feel like they own it.

Behavioral economists have a term for this: the endowment effect. The behavioral economist Jack Knetsch has found that people's willingness to sell an item they own was lower than their willingness to buy an item they did not own, even when the subjects knew ownership was assigned randomly. In one experiment, test subjects were given either a lottery ticket or cash. Most people opted to keep whatever form of compensation they had received first instead of trading it for the other option. For a variety of reasons, whether an aversion to feeling loss or a bias toward the status quo, people tend to get attached to the bird in their hand, even when there might be two in the bush.

List prices can also be misleading. In a hot market, sellers may advertise their homes for significantly less than what buyers are ready to pay in order to spark a bidding war. This amounts to a bait-and-switch.

As a buyer, don't take the bait. Don't anchor your expectations on the listed price. The anchoring effect refers to a person's tendency to focus on the first piece of information they hear while making decisions. In a famous lab experiment by the late Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, research subjects spun a wheel of fortune with numbers from 0 to 100. The participants were then asked to guess the share of African countries that were members of the UN. Participants whose spin landed on a lower number were more likely to guess a low number. Participants whose wheel spin landed on a high number were more likely to guess a high number. The number the needle of the wheel landed on was completely irrelevant, yet the research subjects still used it as an anchor for their guesses.

The list price of a home may contain some helpful information about what the seller believes its value is. But ultimately the value of the house is set by the market.

If you need to, take a break. Losing bidding war after bidding war — which happens a lot — fosters fatigue and impatience, which can lead you to give up too soon or to buy a home you later regret.

Behavioral economists have repeatedly found that the quality of decisions deteriorates when an individual is overburdened with too many options. A study published in Health Economics found that orthopedic surgeons made worse recommendations toward the end of their shifts. Doctors were less likely to recommend surgery for patients who would have benefited just as much from surgery as patients seen earlier in the surgeon's shift.

Also, avoid following the herd. If others are ready to bid high, you could be tempted to do the same and stretch your budget. Herding behavior, another behavioral economics term, can lead to bubbles in the housing market or the stock market and was one of the culprits for the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008. The best way to avoid getting caught up in speculation bubbles is to not speculate in the first place and make offers appropriate only to your personal financial circumstances.

After spending a few weeks touring homes in the area, I came across a property that immediately caught my eye. It had everything my family was looking for. But there was one giant red flag: the home had been on the market for nearly a year without any offers.

Upon further inspection, I noticed that the house was located across the street from a strip mall and had a strange layout. Even though I liked the home, I wanted to avoid paying more than other buyers might think it was worth. So I kept looking.

When buying a home, you have no choice but to concern yourself with resale value. Life is unpredictable; there is always the chance you might not stay in the home long term, and you don't want to pay more than what you can resell it for.

There is tension in this advice: a homebuyer must avoid herding behavior by thinking for themself while simultaneously considering how other people might value homes in the future.

The way to walk the middle path is detached observation — recognize the behavior patterns of others without letting it unduly bias your decision-making.

About a month later, we found a home that seemed too good to be true. Ample space, close to public transit, even a view of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. However, the home was 70 years old, so we would need to update the electrical, plumbing, and heating. Since we were renting elsewhere, we could delay moving to get this work done.

Things go wrong after you buy a home. Thinking that these problems won't end up costing you significant time and money is what behavioral economists call optimism bias: the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of favorable outcomes and underestimate the likelihood of unfavorable outcomes. The challenge, then, is to consider the risks and whether they are worth the reward.

As I prepared to make an offer to buy a home, I thought back to the hundreds of homeowners going through foreclosure that I interviewed while interning at the Boston Fed. They experienced bad luck on top of bad luck — deaths, divorces, medical emergencies, job loss, and a global recession. Any of those things could happen to me.

With all the repairs the house needed, I determined the maximum amount I could afford to pay was $950,000. I liked this particular home more than any other home on the market priced below $950,000, so I reasoned that this amount must be my value for the home. But I still had a nagging feeling that I was overextending myself and overpaying.

What if the roof sprang a leak? And what if, because I had already spent my savings repairing the plumbing, electrical, heating, and cooling, I didn't have any money left to repair the roof?

I could have kept going down the list of unlikely catastrophes. Instead, I focused on the unlikeliness of the scenario rather than the pain of the scenario. This helped me get out of my head and back to the task at hand. In economics, expected utility theory hypothesizes that individuals weigh uncertain outcomes according to their likelihood and the net benefit of each outcome. I shuddered at the thought of a bad scenario, like being laid off during a severe recession and housing-market downturn. However, according to expected utility theory, I should weigh that feeling against the likelihood of that scenario, which I reasoned to be a once-in-a-century event. In all likelihood, my job was safe, the economy was fine, and the value of homes would keep going up.

The home was listed at $840,000. I submitted my bid on the home for that amount. When you're deciding whether to bid above or below the asking price, look up how competitive the housing market is in the neighborhood and how the home compares to what else is on the market. If the market is cool, it's advisable to come in low. However, if the market is hot, the seller may completely ignore your offer if it's below the asking price.

Even though I offered $840,000, I was ready to go as high as $940,000. Later that day, my agent called me to deliver the good news: we won the home at list price. No one else even submitted a bid.

Daryl Fairweather is the author of "Hate the Game: Economic Cheat Codes for Life, Love, and Work" and the chief economist of Redfin.

This story is adapted from "Hate the Game: Economic Cheat Codes for Life, Love, and Work" by Daryl Fairweather, to be published by the University of Chicago Press on April 11, 2025. Copyright © 2025 by Daryl Rose Fairweather. Printed by arrangement with the University of Chicago Press.

• At the World Federation of Advertisers conference, it was clear marketers are under pressure.
• Tariffs, DEI rollbacks, the potential for ad budget cuts — it's a lot.
• But CMOs are a creative bunch. They told me they're hopeful marketing can steer brands through.

"Snafu: Situation normal, all f—d up."

Stephan Loerke, CEO of the World Federation of Advertisers, dropped this f-bomb — part of an acronym coined by the US military during the Second World War — onstage at the ING Arena at the trade body's recent flagship event in Brussels. He said it was an apt way to describe how marketers feel three months into 2025.

Yet marketers will often say they're at their most creative when they're under pressure. (Just don't mention cutting their budgets.)

The duality was on full display at the glitzy conflab, replete with snazzy onstage graphics and a house band playing electropop in between sessions. Speakers from brands like Mastercard, L'Oréal, and Kraft Heinz painted an optimistic vision to the 2,000-strong audience about how marketers could position their companies for growth, despite the tectonic shifts happening around them.

Between the prospects of tariffs, inflation, the rising cost of living, global conflicts, political polarization, and the disruptive impact of AI, there's a lot for a CMO to keep on top of.

Almost all (99%) of the roughly 600 marketers polled in a recent survey from the WFA and the consultancy firm Oxford said economic and geopolitical uncertainty — and the need to quickly adjust priorities and budgets — would be important or more important in the next five years. Roughly two-thirds (68%) said they'd anticipate these pressures would grow.

One knock-on effect of that is ad budgets are likely to take a hit. Marketing is often the first department to feel the impact of cost cuts. In separate reports last month, analysts from Madison and Wall, as well as Magna Global, trimmed their US ad market forecasts for 2025.

Backstage, Loerke told me that many marketers felt the uncertainty was at an inflection point, which was driving conversations about how to prove marketing's value as CMOs prepare for a tough year.

"Usually, when that conversation starts, it means that actually there's a recession coming," said Loerke, a former marketer at L'Oréal in the 1990s.

I interviewed six top global CMOs and spoke with other marketing execs attending the Brussels event to get a sense of what's top of mind for marketers as they navigate the turbulence.

Marketers are scenario planning while trying to keep on track with their long-term strategies

Many marketers are spending a significant portion of their time locked in scenario-planning meetings with their CEOs, chief finance officers, and other members of the C-suite.

"Back in the day, when I started in the business, it was an A plan and a B plan," said Diana Frost, global chief growth officer at Kraft Heinz. "Well, that's a C plan and a D plan now."

With the costs of raw materials going up, marketers in sectors like consumer goods and food are having to make rapid-fire decisions about prices, packaging, and product formulations. Consumers' willingness to pay more at the checkout is often partly determined by years of brand-building designed to make them choose one product over another.

Patrik Hansson, EVP of marketing and innovation at the dairy company Arla Foods, said that while companies may encounter a year with disappointing growth, it's important for CMOs to stick to their plans — a five-year horizon rather than a six-month horizon, say — to ensure their marketing has a long-term impact.

"If you have a way forward, then a bit of noise, a bit of turbulence doesn't distract you from the long term, and that's what we're trying to focus on because otherwise, you get lost in this," Hansson told me.

It all adds up for marketing measurement

Over coffees, canapés, and cocktails, job security was a hot topic at the event.

A February survey published Tuesday from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business found that 63% of the 281 US marketing leaders polled felt increased pressure from their chief finance officers, up from 52% in 2023.

"One of the big problems is that the advertisers themselves are shedding people in an attempt to cut costs, so CMOs are risk-averse and look for signs of success that are supposedly measurable," Nick Manning, founder of the media consultancy Encyclomedia, who was in attendance, told me after the event.

"Saying 'trust me, it'll work' doesn't play in a world where short-term is the only term," Manning added.

Diageo is often seen across the industry as a poster child for demonstrating marketing effectiveness.

In 2023, it began working with a tech company called CreativeX. CreativeX uses artificial intelligence to generate a "creative quality score" that predicts whether digital marketing assets will be effective.

The drinks giant is also using an AI listening tool, developed with its partners Share Creative and Kantar, to predict consumer trends. One insight: 2025 is the year of "zebra striping," in which consumers cut down on their alcohol consumption by alternating between alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks.

Diageo's marketers also use an internal tool called Catalyst to get immediate access to data to help them make planning decisions.

"I want our marketers to have a business mindset and delve into the insights we can now access to plan spend, design campaigns, create content, and collaborate with partners based on what scenario best delivers the brand-building outcome that drives growth," said Cristina Diezhandino, Diageo's chief marketing officer.

At Kraft Heinz, Frost wants to instill a sense of swagger and pride within the marketing department — and she's got the receipts to back it up. The Heinz brand, in particular, has marked compound annual revenue growth of 6% over the past two years, adding around $600 million in top-line growth to the broader Kraft Heinz business, Frost said. She credits the creation of its internal digital ad agency, "The Kitchen," and also the repeatable frameworks it's put in place for Heinz marketers around the world to help grow the brand further.

"When you have these proof points of growth, then you can build the pride, then you can build the momentum of how it's actually possible as you roll it out to the rest of the portfolio, " Frost said.

Jitters over brand safety and DEI rollbacks loomed large

"Brand safety" was the elephant in the room at the event.

Unspoken but present were lawsuits filed by Elon Musk's X and the video platform Rumble, plus a Jim Jordan-led House Judiciary Committee investigation. These took aim at the WFA's now-shuttered voluntary initiative, the Global Alliance of Responsible Media, and more than a dozen of its advertiser members. The lawsuits and the probe, which are ongoing, allege GARM's members illegally colluded to boycott platforms like X and Rumble. While GARM closed, which the WFA said was due to its limited resources, the WFA has said it adhered to competition rules and would prove so in court. The WFA told me in Brussels it didn't want to discuss the matter.

(Side note: For all its glamour, the WFA's event had been originally due to take place at the far-flung locale of Mumbai, India, but after the legal troubles arose, it was shifted to Brussels, where the WFA is headquartered. The WFA partnered with the local advertising trade body, the UBA, to run the main show.)

While GARM was off limits, marketers did open up about another topic that's become newly contentious, particularly in corporate America: the anti-woke movement and the vocal backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Gael de Talhouet, VP of brand building at the Swedish hygiene company Essity, said marketers should be mindful that "a brand is not a political stage."

"It's something where you tell people about the good you bring to the world," he added.

Rupen Desai, CMO and venture partner of the Una Terra Early Growth Fund, said the recent DEI rollbacks had revealed two types of companies: those where DEI was hard-coded into the company's economic model and those that were investing in these sorts of programs just because everyone else was.

For the second type of company, Desai said the recent movements are a "huge sigh of relief."

"When you're grappling with growth, or the lack of it, and this investment isn't really yet showing results, it's probably easier to take a step back," Desai said.

But he added: "The companies who continue on this journey will be bigger winners than the ones who took a step forward, took a step back."

As the sun set over the Palais de la Bourse, the former Brussels stock exchange, where the event's gala dinner was held, the mood was buoyant, despite the complexities the people in the vast dining room were having to navigate this year. (And sure, perhaps the frequently topped-up wine, exquisitely cooked duck, and performance from the French comedy TikTok creators Supermassive helped a tiny bit.)

CMOs are complex creatures, after all, as David Wheldon, the new WFA president and chief brand officer of the lottery group Allwyn, summed up.

"A marketer has to have this strange combination of optimism and belief in what you're doing personally, and belief in what you're doing for your company and your customers — and you have to be aware of the context you're in," Wheldon said. "If you flip-flop because the context is changing rapidly, then you cause yourself a problem."

Henry Kirk, a cofounder of the software development company Studio Init, wants to hire the best engineers. That's why he asked job applicants not to use generative AI in the first technical coding part of their interviews — with the promise that they'd be able to show off their combined engineering and AI skills in a later section. "They still cheated," he tells me.

"It was so obvious," Kirk says. The coding tests took place in tandem with a video call, and some candidates frequently looked off to the side. They gave delayed answers or copied and pasted full blocks of code into the system instead of typing step-by-step. Some refused to share their screens or spouted off-topic answers to verbal questions, leading Kirk to believe they were reading large language model outputs verbatim without even thinking. "It's a waste of our time," he says. But even as AI is making a mess of technical screening tests, Kirk says he still thinks it has value. "I'm a small company. I have 400 applicants. How do I screen the people down to a manageable chunk of folks?"

Many software engineers aren't just allowed but are increasingly expected to use AI on the job. Companies like Google, Meta, and Salesforce increasingly rely on it for engineering tasks in the name of efficiency. But with gen AI now able to code as effectively as a junior engineer, bosses are wondering if the traditional coding tests — which have long been a staple of the hiring process — can still separate the good developers from the sloppy ones.

New tools keep popping up to make cheating on tests even more seamless: A since suspended Columbia University student, Chungin "Roy" Lee, recently created a tool called Interview Coder and used it to cheat on an Amazon coding test and then posted the interview to YouTube. He's selling the tool to other engineers for just $60 a month (he's claimed on X that he received and rejected an internship offer). Amazon has said candidates can be disqualified using gen AI unless explicitly permitted. The company did not comment specifically on Lee's test, but Margaret Callahan, an Amazon spokesperson, tells me that the company has job candidates acknowledge they won't use gen AI during the interview process when it's not permitted, but it does have them share their history of working with the tools when relevant. Google is also considering bringing some interviews back to in-person settings, where they can have more control over the environment. A Google spokesperson told me that applicants are informed before interviews that if they use AI during them they will be disqualified.

Recruiters and hiring managers I spoke to for this story said the mainstream adoption of ChatGPT led them to suspect that more job seekers are trying to cheat their way past the code tests. Companies are scrambling to change old evaluation processes for a new era. But as they push engineers to get more efficient with AI on one hand and wag their finger at its use with the other, they're raising new ethical questions about what really counts as cheating: Is an LLM an unfair edge, or just a coding partner?

The traditional coding interview is at a crossroads. But the end of the old interview might be welcome among engineers.

"Timed coding tests were never truly realistic; AI just pulled back the curtain," says Annie Lux, the founder and CEO of the coaching firm Land That Job. The interviews create pressure and penalize people who struggle in test environments, Lux says. And many employers now expect engineers to leverage AI tools at work — tests that ban them put job candidates in a different scenario than the one they would work in. A 2020 study by North Carolina State University and Microsoft found that people were better at solving coding problems when they weren't being watched closely and told to explain their work as they went — confirmation that some engineers performed worse when under the stressful conditions of a traditional technical interview. "These interviews reward test-taking over engineering," Lux says. "They ignore how software engineers actually work."

Andrej Karpathy, an Open AI cofounder, coined the term "vibe coding," a nod to the way AI will help engineers "just see stuff, say stuff, run stuff, and copy-paste stuff," and have it "mostly work," as he put it. An engineer's skill for writing code may become less impressive than their capacity to understand it. But the issue hiring managers tangle with now is how to balance the benefits of vibe coding with vetting the best engineers from large pools of applicants in a tight job market where there's a huge incentive to cheat your way into an offer letter. On the job, "hopefully, they are using AI, to do the stuff AI can do," says Don Jernigan, a vice president at Experis Services, an IT staffing firm. "We need to be testing and evaluating them from the areas between what a human can do and what AI can't do."

Kirk says a "perfect storm" bolstered cheaters: The tech job market tightened just as ChatGPT went mainstream. There were more applicants for fewer jobs and more people hoping a perfect score on a coding test would help them stand out. Now, it could hurt them in the long run. Kirk says he and his team have gotten more confident about catching cheaters, and will sometimes call them out and end the interview if they're sure they've found one. One applicant even admitted to it, and others have left the interview without argument, he says. And he is keeping a blacklist of people he suspects cheat in his interviews and plans to never consider them in the future. He already has a list of dozens of people he's sure tried to cheat, with hundreds more who raised suspicion. Now, his studio has applicants follow up their first test by coming on-site for more tests. "We're potentially paying you a lot of money and we need to make sure there's a good fit all around," he says.

ChatGPT didn't invent cheating. In the past, software engineering applicants would sometimes deputize a friend to spit out code in their place (either in a take-home test or, as one recruiter told me, actually sending someone else in their place to the interview round), and job seekers would share coding tests and answers online. If you search Reddit, TikTok, or Blind, you'll find people sharing tips and tricks to con an interviewer. But AI is a knowledgeable friend who's even easier to access. More people are using it to try to land any job by mass applying or sending AI-generated cover letters. Overwhelmed recruiters then use their own AI tools to try to sift through and find the best candidates. It's all creating a massive cog, with two different AIs talking to each other and both job seekers and hiring managers feeling frustrated.

When it came to engineers, recruiters and hiring managers started to notice something was amiss by early 2023. Job applicants completed coding tests with perfect answers, but when they moved on to interviews about the test, some knew little to nothing about the work they'd submitted. "Even with ChatGPT earlier versions, it could solve a lot of coding questions," says Yang Mou, the cofounder and CEO of the AI recruiting company Fonzi. "The thing that's even more insidious now is that the AI is also better at explaining the answers as if it was a human." Fonzi interviewed 1,270 candidates for a software engineering job between January and March, and flagged 23% of them "as likely to be using external tools," Mou says. The AI tool scans answers for awkwardly long pauses and evaluates phrases used to see the likelihood that they've been written by a chatbot, and then humans can listen back to the interview to see if they catch any red flags.

Two years ago, the technical interview company Karat flagged about 2% of interviewees as potential cheaters. Now, that proportion has jumped to 10% of interviewees. "It's happening more frequently," says Jeffrey Spector, the cofounder and president of Karat. "Ultimately, our belief is that interviews have to evolve." Karat is developing a new interview process that it hopes will better evaluate job seekers when they use LLMs, Spector tells me. "The LLM is becoming a core part of how engineers do their job. Preventing them from using the tools on their job seems very unnatural."

As AI becomes a bigger part of the job, Spector says, hiring managers — and humanity at large — have to ask the question: "How do you define cheating?" He says people shouldn't disregard explicit instructions not to use AI, but if most people are using it and you're not, you might be at a disadvantage in the interview process. Many applicants use books and online tips to study for coding interviews, and some use ChatGPT to practice for job interviews. When it comes to using AI in the actual test, Spector says, a tipping point will come where it feels too disadvantageous not to, particularly among young engineers who have learned and grown up in the LLM era — and the ethical questions will get messier.

Hadi Chami, the director of solution engineering at the software company Apryse, says he began to notice ways job candidates were using LLMs as he started to use them more in his own work. So he changed the job application last year. Now, he gives applicants who pass a first "vibe check" interview a take-home assignment, with the expectation they'll use AI. But he tells them they'll have to walk him through their work. That's helpful for now, as he can still see whether they know why something works, not just that it does work. But Chaim expects the problem to get worse: He says that he's concerned about young workers coming into the field. "They may have an overreliance on the tool. They'll be able to ace all their classes," but might struggle in the workplace, he says.

Maybe this isn't the interview apocalypse scenario it seems. "This is a little of a new frontier, which is maybe why there is so much fear and stress on both sides and people are just flailing," says Victoria Gates, the cofounder of the interview training firm Expert Interviews. "If you're investing your time and your money into finding out if candidates are cheating, you're wasting your time. The way interview processes are today, they are very unfair towards candidates. Of course they're going to try to find anything they can." Instead of trying to go full bad cop and employ tech to monitor cheating, Gates says companies should train interviewers to ask incisive follow-up questions and for specific examples that LLMs can't generate. Right now, companies may be focused on catching cheaters, but Ali Ansari, the founder and CEO of the AI interview company Micro1, says that will change. "I think coding in general is already looking extremely different," he says. "That implies even without the cheating, the coding test will have to start looking different." He predicts that there will be a "new norm" for coding interviews within the next year or two.

All this coding mess is evidence of the breakdown in trust between employers and workers. Job seekers are questioning how much free labor they owe someone who may not even extend them a second interview, and more bosses are doubting the integrity and work ethic of the people reporting to them. So much of the tech meant to make job searching easier and more accessible has just added noise to the process. Killing the old coding test and using something more creative in its place may be a small step in repairing that disconnect.

Amanda Hoover is a senior correspondent at Business Insider covering the tech industry. She writes about the biggest tech companies and trends.

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a bill that would cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
• The average annual percentage rate on credit balances has jumped to 21% in 2024 from 12% in 2003.
• More people are falling behind on monthly payments, showing signs of consumer stress.

Americans' credit card debt is at an all-time high. Soaring interest rates on credit cards coupled with other economic factors could make the situation worse.

In March, Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Anna Paulina Luna introduced a bipartisan House bill that aims to cap annual credit card interest rates at 10% a year.

"Credit cards with high interest rates regularly trap working people in endless cycles of debt," Ocasio-Cortez said in a press statement. "At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, we cannot allow big banks to shake down our communities for profit."

The average annual percentage rate on credit balances has nearly doubled in the past decade to 21% in 2024 from 12% in 2003, per the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Credit card interest rates can fluctuate with an individual's credit score, but they are ultimately determined by market conditions.

As credit card interest rates have risen, so has the amount of consumer debt, as well as delinquencies on payments.

The total amount of credit card debt has ballooned to $1.2 trillion in Q4 of 2024 up from $720 billion in the same quarter of 2004, per the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. More people are falling behind on their monthly payments and the number of active credit card users only making the minimum payment on their monthly credit card statement has reached a record high, "showing signs of consumer stress," per the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's 2024 Q3 report.

President Donald Trump ran on campaign promises last year that he would temporarily cap credit card interest rates at 10%, to allow Americans to "catch up" on their balances, but he hasn't taken executive action or spoken about interest rate caps since entering office.

The bill is now referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, but has yet to be put on the calendar for a vote in the House of Representatives.

Ocasio-Cortez and Luna did not respond to requests for comment.

Do you have a story to share about being delinquent on a student loan or credit card payment? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected].

• Vacheron Constantin has a new wristwatch that does a lot more than tell the time.
• The new timepiece comprises over 1,500 components and has 41 functions.
• The watch is "mind-blowing" and "a total flex of horological muscle," said Paul Altieri, the founder and CEO of the watch reseller Bob's Watches.

If you need to know which constellations are above you in the sky at any given moment, Vacheron Constantin has you covered.

The Swiss watchmaker is rolling out the "Les Cabinotiers Solaria Ultra Grand Complication — La Première," which it called the "most complicated wristwatch ever made."

According to the watchmaker's website, the 45-mm-diameter and 14.99-mm-high watch comprises 1,521 components. The watch has 41 complications — a term referring to any function of a watch that goes beyond the display of time.

Paul Altieri, the founder and CEO of the watch reseller Bob's Watches, told BI that fitting 41 complications into a wristwatch while keeping it wearable is "mind-blowing" and "a total flex of horological muscle."

"It's less of a watch and more of a statement — the ultimate blend of art, engineering, and ego," Altieri said.

It took eight years of development and 13 patent applications to get the watch out, Vacheron Constantin said.

The timepiece looks sleek and modern, with black dials accented with metallic gray and white tones. The watch is double-sided, with its top face featuring four subdials and its inner face showing the position of the stars.

Apart from telling its wearer the time, the watch also shows the sun's position, height, trajectory, and angle relative to the Earth. It also lets the wearer know which constellations are overhead and how long it will take for a star to be visible.

The watch was revealed at the Watches and Wonders trade fair in Geneva on Tuesday, CNN reported.

Representatives for Vacheron Constantin did not respond to requests from Business Insider regarding the retail price of the watch, when it would be available for sale, and how many pieces of this model would be released.

The new watch follows the watchmaker's history of making ultra-complicated watches. In 2024, it released the "Les Cabinotiers - The Berkley Grand Complication," a pocketwatch with 63 complications and 2,877 components.

'Extremely delicate'

A watch with this many complications is "extremely delicate," Altieri said. Servicing would likely take months and could probably be done only by Vacheron's top-level master watchmakers in Geneva, he added.

"Collectors and horological folks will worship it, but it's definitely not meant for mass appeal. It's meant as a show-stopper. A jaw-dropper," Altieri said.

Matteo Barbetti, a luxury vintage watch expert based in Italy, told BI the fact that the watch's features can fit into a wearable 45mm case without compromising the thickness "is a testament to Vacheron Constantin's mastery of miniaturization and innovation."

But the "sheer number of complications might make it less practical for everyday wear," Barbetti said.

"I believe the Solaria will captivate serious collectors and enthusiasts of haute horology," he added.

• Adam Kadyrov, 17, was just appointed to oversee Chechnya's internal affairs ministry.
• He's the son of Chechen strongman leader Ramzan Kadyrov, a staunch ally of Vladimir Putin.
• The teenager is set to lead a ministry in charge of police, counterterrorism, and local security.

Adam Kadyrov is enjoying a stellar career.

Russian state media reported that the 17-year-old was named curator of Chechnya's internal affairs ministry on Monday, meaning he'll oversee police and local security forces. The ministry also handles counterterrorism and riot control.

A state broadcast showed the teen receiving the appointment at a ceremonial meeting as uniformed officers applauded.

Soon after, he was filmed performing his duties by naming a new head of Chechnya's operational search division and handing out medals to police officers.

The 17-year-old was already appointed overseer of Chechnya's Russian Special Forces University last April. The university says it teaches civilians and soldiers skills such as artillery operations and parachute landing.

The teenager is also the third son of Ramzan Kadyrov, the strongman leader of Russia's predominantly Muslim Chechen Republic.

Allied closely with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Kadyrov's family rose to power by helping Moscow defeat Chechen separatists in the early 2000s. They've played a pronounced role in the invasion of Ukraine, particularly in the earlier days of the full-scale war, when Chechen militias were frequently seen fighting on the front lines.

Adam's boyhood rise came amid the war. He surged into public view when he was 15 after he was filmed in September 2023 beating and kicking a prisoner accused of burning the Quran.

Russia's human rights authorities voiced concern about the assault, but Kadyrov lauded his son after the clip went viral and said he "did the right thing."

Since then, the teenager has been bestowed with Chechnya's "Hero of the Republic" medal. He's been separately given at least eight other state awards and honors.

In November 2023, just before turning 16, he was named the head of his father's security detail. For his role, the teenager was entered into Russia's "Book of Records" — the country's version of the Guinness World Records — for being the youngest recorded chief of a security detail.

The accolades and appointments have prompted speculation that the teenager is being groomed to succeed his father amid rumors that Kadyrov may be suffering from poor health. Novaya Gazeta, a Russian independent newspaper, reported in April that the warlord may be battling issues with his kidneys and pancreas.

Kadyrov was not seen at his son's appointment on Monday, but state media said the teenager was given the role under the Chechen leader's orders. State broadcasts showed him meeting with local residents during the Muslim festival of Eid.

Kadyrov's press service did not respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider.

• Val Kilmer, known for his roles in "Top Gun" and "The Doors," has died at age 65.
• His daughter confirmed to The New York Times that pneumonia was the cause of the actor's death.
• He was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2014, and his voice was permanently damaged from a tracheostomy.

Val Kilmer, the actor known for his roles in "Top Gun" and "Batman Forever," died on Tuesday in Los Angeles at the age of 65.

His daughter, Mercedes Kilmer, confirmed to The New York Times that the cause of death was pneumonia.

Originally a stage actor, Kilmer made his film debut in 1984's "Top Secret." In 1986, he was cast alongside Tom Cruise in "Top Gun," a film about students at the United States Navy's elite Fighter Weapons School.

In the movie, which became a cult classic, Kilmer played Tom "Iceman" Kazansky, a rival to Cruise's Pete "Maverick" Mitchell.

He starred as Jim Morrison in 1991's "The Doors," in which he was praised for his uncanny depiction of the troubled rock singer. Kilmer's singing voice was used in the film.

In 1995, Kilmer played the Dark Knight in "Batman Forever," taking over the role from Michael Keaton. The film was met with mixed reviews and he was replaced by George Clooney for 1997's "Batman & Robin."

Kilmer was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2014 but recovered. However, his voice was permanently damaged due to a tracheostomy.

To reprise his role as Iceman in 2022's "Top Gun: Maverick," the actor worked with a London tech company, Sonantic, to use AI to recreate his voice for the sequel.

Jerry Bruckheimer, a producer on the "Top Gun" sequel, said in 2022 that Cruise was the "driving force" behind getting Kilmer to return for the movie.

"He said, 'We have to have Val, we have to have him back. We have to have him in the film,'" Bruckheimer told People. "And he was the driving force. We all wanted him, but Tom was really adamant that if he's going to make another 'Top Gun,' Val had to be in it."

Kilmer has two children, son Jack Kilmer and daughter Mercedes Kilmer, with his ex-wife, Joanne Whalley, whom he divorced in 1996.

A representative for Kilmer and Kilmer's agent did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. BI was not immediately able to reach Mercedes Kilmer for comment.

• OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o boosted user growth after its Ghibli-style image creation feature took off.
• Microsoft stands to benefit from OpenAI's growth, wrote Jefferies.
• OpenAI's latest $40 billion funding round raised its valuation to $300 billion.

A new AI trend has taken the internet by storm, and at least one Big Tech giant stands to make a killing.

Last week, OpenAI rolled out ChatGPT-4o, an upgraded image generator that users piled into to create images in the Japanese animation firm Studio Ghibli style. The trend is helping fuel a record spike in users, so much so that OpenAI is struggling to keep up.

The surge in ChatGPT users would benefit Microsoft because the spike boosts OpenAI's growth, computing needs, and valuation, Jefferies analysts led by Brent Thill said in a note on Tuesday.

Microsoft is a major investor in the artificial intelligence firm and its primary cloud provider. The company also integrates OpenAI's large language models into its products. Last week, Microsoft's CEO, Satya Nadella, said the company may build its own generative AI capability to complement its partnership with OpenAI.

"We would glean that surging ChatGPT user growth likely indicates surging ChatGPT+ growth i.e. revenue growth for OpenAI," the analysts wrote.

The analysts also touted OpenAI's most recent funding round as beneficial to Microsoft. On Monday, OpenAI announced it closed the largest private tech funding round on record. The company raised $40 billion from SoftBank and other investors, bringing the company's valuation to $300 billion. The ChatGPT maker was last valued at $157 billion in October.

Jefferies has a buy rating on Microsoft and a price target of $500. The stock closed at $382 on Tuesday. It is down 9.3% in the past year.

Record ChatGPT usage

ChatGPT has become a household name since its launch in November 2022, but last week's animation trend sent demand soaring.

On Monday, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote on X that ChatGPT had just added one million users in the past hour. At launch two years ago, it took five days to reach that number of users.

Last week, ChatGPT's weekly app downloads, weekly active users, and revenue from subscriptions and in-app purchases reached an all-time high — increasing 11%, 5%, and 6%, respectively, week-over-week — according to data from market intelligence firm SensorTower.

Besides Microsoft, producers of graphic processing units stand to benefit from the Ghibli hype. Nvidia, AMD, and Intel are some of the biggest GPU companies.

"Working as fast we can to really get stuff humming; if anyone has GPU capacity in 100k chunks we can get asap please call!," Altman wrote on X on Tuesday.

The Jefferies analysts said few vendors can deliver this much capacity and estimated that any deal with OpenAI could bring in $1 billion to $2 billion a year for the GPU provider.