• Microsoft Word is Microsoft's legacy word-processing software.
• You can access Microsoft Word for free online, or their are paid versions you can download.
• Microsoft Word has a number of handy features and functions to customize your documents.

Microsoft Word came out during Ronald Reagan's first term in the Oval Office, and in the decades that have passed between then and now, it has become one of Microsoft's most important and successful pieces of software and one of the most-used programs on the planet.

A core program in the Microsoft 365 software suite, along with Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook, Word is used in homes, schools, offices, government agencies, and beyond. But while Word used to be included with Microsoft Windows, today you have to acquire it separately.

How much does Word cost?

If you want to buy Microsoft Word on its own, you can do so from Microsoft's website. The purchase price is $159.99 and you will own the program outright.

But many people opt for a Microsoft 365 subscription, instead. This costs just $6.99 per month and gives you access to Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and OneDrive. That pricing comes out to $83.88 for the entire year, meaning you will be nearing the two-year mark before you pass the $159.99 price of outright buying Word on its own.

There is a way to get Word for free, but only for use online. It will not be downloaded on your computer. Go to Microsoft365.com and click on the words "Sign up for the free version of Microsoft 365."

You will be prompted to create a Microsoft account which you can then use to log in and access Word online for free. You must be connected to the internet and online to use Word for free.

How do I download Word?

Whether you choose to buy Word on its own or subscribe to Microsoft 365, you can do so at Microsoft's website. Just make sure you get the right plan if you are going with a subscription. There are Home plans and Business plans, as you'll see.

What are the best Word shortcuts and features?

There are the basics that are all but universal across Windows products and platforms, like Ctrl + C to copy and Ctrl + V to paste, Ctrl + S to save, and Ctrl + K to insert a link, but Microsoft Word has many lesser-known but highly useful shortcuts beyond the basics.

Hotkeys

Ctrl + A, for example, selects all of the text in a document, while Ctrl + Z undoes the last action. But moving beyond those simple shortcuts, there are more complicated quick actions you can take in Word.

Insert custom text

You can insert custom text, such as a greeting or a signature line, by creating text then using the Insert feature. Click "Insert" in the top taskbar, click "AutoText," and then enter your desired copy into the window that appears. Going forward, you can click "Insert" then "AutoText" to quickly drop in your pre-written words.

Watermarks

To add a watermark that helps protect your document from being copied, you can click on the "Design" tab at the top of Word, then click "Watermark" on the top right of the application. Then choose an image or add text that will be faintly imprinted behind your copy.

There are many more fun and useful Word features, of course, so explore more yourself.

Microsoft Word vs. Pages vs. Google Docs

These other common word-processing programs have plenty to offer, though if your primary focus is creating and editing crisp, professional written documents, Word is likely the best bet.

Google Docs offers the same basic word processing features as Word, but it has fewer templates, text editing tools, tables, and other enhancements useful for complex documents. That said, Google Docs is far better for collaborative work, especially when a team is remote, and it's free.

Pages is Apple's primary word processing platform and it is free with a Mac, iPad, or iPhone, and it's easier to use than Word, especially for people who are not highly tech savvy. But it's also more limited in features, and the documents created in Pages don't transfer well to other operating systems or platforms, so they usually need to be converted to Word docs anyway if they will be shared.

• Americans visiting the UK now need to apply for an Electronic Travel Authorization.
• It's also necessary if you have a layover at an airport in the UK.
• Applying costs about $12 and should only take 10 minutes using the app.

The UK has changed its entry requirements, so most visitors need to apply for permission to travel to the country.

This is also necessary if you have a layover at a UK airport.

It encompasses all parts of the UK — England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland — as well as British Overseas Territories, which include Anguilla, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Turks and Caicos.

As of January 8, US and Canadian citizens are among 48 nationalities who will need an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA).

It is similar to systems already used in the US and Canada, as the UK is moving to a digital border system.

You would be exempt if you have a UK visa or legal residency or if you are traveling on an Irish passport.

Otherwise, you must apply for an ETA before you travel to the UK.

How to apply for a UK ETA

It shouldn't take longer than 10 minutes to apply — although there is a fee of £10, or around $12.

The easiest way to apply is through the government's mobile app called "UK ETA." If you can't download the app, you can also apply through the UK government's website.

You first need to take a picture of your passport's photo page.

If you have a biometric passport, shown by the e-passport symbol on the cover, then the app can scan it.

You then scan your face with your phone's camera and take a photo of yourself.

You will also need to answer questions about your address, job, criminal history, and any other nationalities. If you're under 18, you also need to give contact details for someone with parental responsibility for you.

Afterward, you'll get an email confirming your application. Another will arrive when a decision has been made — usually within three working days.

What you can do with an ETA

The ETA is valid for two years, during which time you can travel to the UK as much as you want.

You can stay in the UK for up to six months for tourism, visiting family and friends, business, or short-term study. You can also transit through a UK airport.

With an ETA, you can't do paid or unpaid work in the UK unless you're doing a permitted paid engagement or have a Creative Worker visa concession.

You can travel to the UK while awaiting a decision as long as you've already applied.

Being approved for an ETA doesn't guarantee entry to the UK, as you'll still need to pass border control.

• A couple moved from the US to Morocco for a better lifestyle and work-life balance.
• They work remotely, allowing them time to enjoy the country's late-night culture and leisure.
• They're expecting a baby, so they value Morocco's safety, healthcare, and family-oriented culture.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Arleevia and Ricoyo Lyles. The couple moved from the US to Tangier, Morocco, in November. Arleevia, 26, works in marketing, and Ricoyo, 40, works in finance. Both work remotely in jobs focused on the US, and they're expecting a baby in April. The couple posts on YouTube about their experience living abroad. The following has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Ricoyo: After spending a few days here during our honeymoon, we fell in love with the culture, the people, and the food. I was joking with Arleevia when I asked her, "Hey, what do you think about moving to Morocco?" I didn't think I would get the response that I did. That sparked us going down the rabbit hole of "What if we actually moved here?"

Arleevia: We work remotely, so we thought it was feasible. We didn't own any property in the US. It was simply a conversation with my employer. They said, "As long as you get your work done." Ricoyo has his own financial firm that he had just started, so he's his own employer. So, for him, working remotely wasn't an issue. He works on US Central Standard Time. He works from about 4 p.m. until about 2 or 3 a.m., and he's up by 11 a.m. the next day.

Ricoyo: We were living in Nashville. We had been there for about three years, and then we relocated back to my hometown of Las Vegas right before moving to Morocco.

My biggest concern was, "Am I going to be falling asleep talking with clients?" But we've adjusted to it. It's almost turned into an evening-type position. It's funny because the culture here is kind of a late-night culture anyway. At night, there are still people in the cafés drinking coffee and going out to restaurants. My schedule almost fits with the vibe of the city.

Arleevia: We're still able to go out, explore the city, and hang out with friends in the afternoon if we want to. I work in the morning and often close out in the evening because I'm not on as many client calls as he is. We've been able to acclimate and socialize.

They have a healthy work-life balance here. Yes, they work very hard, but also they believe in leisure and rest. You see a lot of people out during the day — at cafés drinking tea together. A lot of men will be out, and they'll go back to work. Having that kind of influence has been very helpful for us to be like, "OK, we can take a break from work." We don't have to grind, grind, grind, like we did in the US.

Ricoyo: The priority of family feels like it's so much higher on the list. Even just seeing families out and about is a super-calming thing. We went to a park the other day, and we were thinking, "When was the last time we saw this many kids at a park?"

From the standpoint of raising a child here, that would be a great thing for our daughter.

From a safety and crime standpoint, it's a very low crime rate.

Arleevia: When it comes to gun violence, especially, we don't have to think about that. We just feel a lot safer.

Also, the healthcare is amazing. We had to find a gynecologist. We were not expecting it to be as amazing as it was. I've had the most thorough doctor experience of my life. In the US, my appointments for baby checkups would be five to 15 minutes, on average. Here, we spent 45 minutes to an hour with our doctor. She was so thorough, cared so much, and was deeply invested in answering every question I had.

Ricoyo: I was always conditioned that it doesn't get better than the US, that nowhere else has the luxuries that we have in the US. Yet in terms of the lifestyle, in Morocco the food quality, for example, seems so much better.

Arleevia: Even when it comes to customer service and how they treat people, it's with such respect and care — and they make sure that everybody feels supported. I feel like that comes through in people being able to take time away from work and spending time with their family.

Ricoyo: I set my own schedule, and sometimes Arleevia will be like, "Hey, babe, maybe don't book as many meetings today. Let's go and do something and explore a little bit." So, she kind of keeps me grounded. Otherwise, I'll work the day away.

There are other differences. For example, in terms of race, it's not something that you're thinking about as soon as you meet somebody. Here, they seem to think more in nationality, if anything. They're thinking, "Are you from Senegal? Are you from the US?" Even then, many people seem to love other countries.

Going back to safety: As a Black man, that's something that I always had in the back of my mind. Being here, we don't have to think about that as much, if at all. It's been nice to just interact human-to-human and then try to connect with your experience versus the stereotype behind your skin color.

In the US, when a complete stranger approaches me, it's kind of like I'm on guard. But here, you just meet some of the most amazing people who take time out of their day. They'll be like, "Hey, let me show you something around here." I find myself having to lower my defenses. I will stop and spend time and talk to them and enjoy cups of tea.

When my friends ask me what it's like living here, I think of it as a one-sentence answer: "This reminds me of the good old days." It feels like time has really slowed down. You're really able to take time out of your day and — not to be cheesy — really smell the roses.

Arleevia: There's a heightened level of respect for people here, especially with me being pregnant. There's so much care around that. Men are like, "Hey, take a seat. I can help you with your luggage."

We see often — and this is something very different — if an older person is trying to cross the road, somebody that's much younger will come and assist them. They don't even know them from Adam, but they'll go and walk across the road to make sure that they get across safely. That's something that you see in old movies, but that's a common practice here.

Arleevia: We want to be here for several years because we've moved so much. It'd be ideal to stay for three to five years. Even if it's not in Tangier, we would be open to living in another country. We definitely see this as a long-term living abroad.

Not having a church has probably been the most difficult thing for us to get acclimated to. Morocco is a predominantly Muslim country. There are Christian churches around, but it's tough to find them.

Being away from family is obviously also hard. We miss them dearly. The language barrier has probably been the other tough thing. But outside that, it's been a very easy transition for us.

Ricoyo: The best things in life are often outside our comfort zone. People always talk about how it would be great to travel the world, to see other places, and to experience other cultures. This is making that a reality.

• Anthropic is reportedly nearing a $60 billion valuation.
• The Amazon-backed AI company is one of the most valuable unlisted companies in the US.
• Here are the top five US unicorns.

Anthropic is reportedly closing in on a deal that would value it at $60 billion as investors pile into AI companies.

The AI startup is backed by Amazon, and its latest funding round would propel it into the top five most valuable unlisted startups in the US — three of which are AI companies, according to data from CB Insights as of January 7.

The power and popularity of generative AI has led to Big Tech and startups using billions to fund their AI projects. As December came to a close, UBS said Big Tech was on pace to have spent $222 billion on building AI in 2024.

Apple, which was notably late to join the AI craze, has partnered with OpenAI to bring ChatGPT to Apple Intelligence on new iPhone models, a move that may have helped boost OpenAI's valuation.

Anthropic's round of funding was led by venture firm Lightspeed Venture Partners, according to The Wall Street Journal. The $60 billion figure includes the money it plans to raise this round.

Here are the top five most valuable unlisted companies.

SpaceX: $350 billion

SpaceX is one of two startups in the top five that aren't primarily AI companies. The designer, maker, and launcher of rockets and spacecraft was founded by billionaire Elon Musk in 2002, using a $100 million investment from the sale of PayPal.

The startup employs about 12,000 staff, with 200 rocket launches under its belt. One of Musk's missions is to colonize Mars by 2050 with reusable rockets.

A deal worth $1.25 billion made SpaceX the most valuable private startup, with a valuation of $350 billion, Bloomberg reported in December.

OpenAI: $157 billion

OpenAI was founded in 2015 by its current CEO, Sam Altman, and Musk. The release of AI chatbot ChatGPT in 2022 took the tech industry by storm. The startup almost doubled its valuation from $86 billion to $157 billion after a fundraising round in October, according to the Journal.

Since ChatGPT's release, the AI assistant garnered over 200 million weekly users, OpenAI said in August.

Stripe: $70 billion

The other non-AI startup in the top five is Stripe, a payment software company founded in 2009 by brothers Patrick and John Collison.

Although Stripe isn't classified as an AI company, its CFO joined the board of AI startup Vercel in December. Stripe began buying back some of its shares in November at a $70 billion valuation, according to Bloomberg.

Databricks: $62 billion

Databricks, a cloud-based data and AI company, announced a $10 billion funding round in December that would bring its valuation to $62 billion. It launched its AI model, DBRX, in March 2024.

"Generative AI is going to disrupt any software company that exists today," Ali Ghodsi, CEO of Databricks, previously said to Business Insider.

He added, "These models are going to change how humans interact with machines and how machines interact with humans."

Anthropic: $60 billion

In 2021, ex-OpenAI employees founded Anthropic. The startup has since started competing with the ChatGPT maker with its own chatbot, Claude. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei was the vice president of research at OpenAI before leaving in 2020, according to his LinkedIn profile.

While ChatGPT has captured the attention of casual users who want to make a meal plan or get essay help, Anthropic's AI has been attracting developers when it comes to coding. CB Insights previously valued it at just over $16 billion.

• Middle managers have a vital job in the workplace.
• However, some companies have scaled back on middle management.
• Workplace experts shared why middle managers can be essential to a business's success.

US businesses are betting that they can thrive with fewer middle managers. They could come to regret it.

Some business leaders think that scaling back middle-manager roles — a trend called the "Great Flattening" — could help them cut costs and operate more efficiently. However, managers and workplace experts told Business Insider that middle managers play several important roles, including executing the goals of upper management, addressing workplace issues, and boosting workers' morale and performance.

"They really do form the connection between the company's strategy and execution by workers on the front lines of the business," Daniel Zhao, the lead economist at Glassdoor, said. "Without an effective layer of middle management, you aren't going to get strategy translating into results."

BI's Aki Ito reported that some companies have realized that employing fewer middle managers can significantly strain their operations. Workplace experts and managers described to BI what makes middle managers important, why companies should invest in training them, and the challenges of these roles.

Why workplace experts think middle managers are valuable

Bryan Hancock, a McKinsey partner who has written about management, said middle managers are critical for an organization's overall performance. Hancock also emphasized their role in employees' performance and well-being, including helping workers grow in their careers.

"Managers are critical in making individuals feel like they belong, feel understood, and connecting all of that messiness of our personal life to our work life," Hancock said.

Middle managers can be a key part of building up the entire workforce. "Companies have to invest in the skillset and the development of these managers in order to avoid certain pitfalls that can ultimately impact revenue generation and career development and growth," Jessica Hardeman, senior director of attraction and engagement at career site Indeed, said, adding "heightened emotional maturity," digital fluency, and adaptability are attributes of a good manager.

While Zhao, Hardeman, and Hancock think managers are critical to a workplace, the job market for middle managers has cooled down.

An analysis of job postings provided to Business Insider by Revelio Labs, a workforce analytics provider, found opportunities for middle manager roles had declined by 42% between April 2022 and October 2024. Opportunities for junior employees, associate workers, and senior leadership roles fell by 15%, 17%, and 25%, respectively.

With fewer opportunities in middle management and a likely cooler job market in 2025, middle-manager job seekers are competing for other roles.

"Career setbacks have created a traffic jam at the bottom of the ladder, with middle managers now competing in the same pool of jobs as frontline managers and experienced employees in the same pool as new grads," a Glassdoor report published in November said.

In addition to the cooler demand for middle managers, the job has become more challenging in recent years. As BI previously reported, managers may have had to handle more work because of fewer hires, tried to get people to comply with return-to-office policies, and be the bearers of unfortunate compensation and career mobility news due to scalebacks in pay bumps and promotions.

Workplace experts told BI that managers should receive adequate training to help make their jobs a bit more manageable. Zhao said companies should invest in training the next leaders to set them up for long-running success in this step of the career ladder.

Why managers think they are valuable

Managers who talked to BI also think middle management does a lot for the workplace.

Tsvetelina Nasteva, a human resources manager for Casinoreviews.net, said the idea that middle managers just deal with the "day-to-day stuff" upper management doesn't have time for oversimplifies what they do.

"Our jobs are so much bigger than that," said Nasteva, who's in her 30s. "We're the ones driving innovation, shaping culture, engaging talent, and providing the insights that help steer the ship."

Kyle, a former manager, said he thinks middle managers can be valuable for businesses — but they often aren't given the power and freedom to fully execute their job responsibilities.

"I think the great lie told to middle managers, at least many of them, is that they can be arbiters of change and will be free to mold their teams and processes in their own style — except then that's not how they're treated," said Kyle, who asked for partial anonymity due to fear of professional repercussions.

He said that instead, some middle managers are largely tasked with things like timesheet approvals, disciplinary conversations, and running meetings — administrative work upper management doesn't have time for.

Tiago Pita, a brand and e-commerce director based in the UK, said he decided to step into a middle management role because he wanted to shape his team's direction while still being involved in day-to-day operations. He said juggling these two priorities is what makes middle managers valuable.

"We're the ones translating high-level goals into actionable tasks, ensuring that our teams stay on track and motivated," said Pita, who's in his 30s. "Middle managers also play a big role in sustaining company culture, as we work closely with team members and address their questions, struggles, and achievements on a more personal level than upper management can."

What has your middle management experience been like? Have you quit a middle manager role or don't plan to become a manager? Reach out to these reporters at [email protected] and [email protected].

• Jean Kang spent a decade working in various roles and companies throughout Silicon Valley.
• She would've navigated her career differently had she known things like there are no 'dream jobs.'
• Job-hopping, personal branding, and exploration were also crucial to her career development.

When I graduated from college in 2014, I thought I'd finally made it. Before graduation, I landed a role in Silicon Valley and was excited to start.

Looking back now, after nearly a decade of working at companies like Meta, LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Figma and hopping roles more times than I can count, I realize my early impressions were overly rosy — and a bit naive.

Silicon Valley taught me a ton and helped me boost my salary to more than I thought possible, but there are a few things I wish someone had sat me down and told me when I was fresh out of college.

These insights might've saved me from a few late-night spirals or could've helped me navigate my career a bit more strategically. They also gave me the courage to leave behind my $300,000-a-year job and build a multi-six-figure business on my terms once I learned them.

Here are five pieces of advice I wish I could've told my younger self.

1. Job hopping isn't quitting

I probably would've laughed if you'd told me in my early 20s that switching companies multiple times within a few years would help me stand out. I assumed staying put and showing loyalty was the "safe" path.

Yet, in Silicon Valley, some of my biggest leaps in salary, responsibility, and growth came after I decided to hop from one role to another. This was especially true during market shake-ups, like mass layoffs.

When teams are rebuilding, they hire for high-impact roles that are often critical to moving the needle. If you're still employed and apply for one, it sends a loud and clear message: "I'm confident, I'm valuable, and I'm here to make a difference."

If I'd known that earlier, I would've pounced on opportunities sooner rather than waiting and hoping things would improve at a company that no longer fit.

2. Build your personal brand before you 'need' it

I used to think personal branding was a bit fluffy, but just under two years ago, I saw a void on LinkedIn for real, honest career stories. I started sharing my insights — what it's like to be a program manager, the differences between project and product roles, and how to combat imposter syndrome — and people cared. Before I knew it, I had tens of thousands and now over 160,000 followers across LinkedIn, Instagram, and my newsletter.

My personal brand served as a jumping board for lucrative opportunities and increased my confidence. Brand sponsors started reaching out. Clients wanted me as a career coach. I realized that your name could carry weight outside your company — and that's crucial when layoffs hit, or you're considering going solo.

Had I started building my brand earlier, I could've leveraged it to negotiate better offers and land roles that excited me and made me feel less chained to any employer's fate.

3. Your early career is about exploring

For the first few years, I beat myself up for not having a linear career path. I tried sales, account management, customer success, and program management. While it felt like I was throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something stuck, something magical happened.

Those pivots gave me a fuller understanding of how companies operate, what kind of work lit me up, and where I could deliver unique value.

Silicon Valley rewards curiosity. When I realized that program management was my zone of genius, my diverse skill set made me a stronger candidate for all sorts of roles.

If someone had told me early on that it's perfectly fine — even advantageous — to experiment, I wouldn't have wasted energy feeling guilty about my "lack of focus." Instead, I'd have embraced my pivots as a strategy to discover my impact.

4. Your manager matters more than you think

Getting starstruck by big brand logos, flashy products, and employee perks is easy. I thought working at dream companies would solve all my problems and set me up for steady career growth.

Over time, I realized that your immediate environment — your manager and your direct team — plays a far bigger role in your day-to-day happiness and long-term development than the company logo on your résumé.

A great manager who champions your ideas, respects your time, and encourages growth can make an imperfect organization feel worth it. Conversely, a manager who sees you as a cog in the machine or doesn't invest in your potential can make a dream company feel like a nightmare. I've now experienced both.

If I'd known earlier how critical the right boss is, I would've factored that into my decision-making more heavily, maybe asked more pointed questions in interviews, or trusted my gut when something felt off.

5. There are no 'dream jobs'

Silicon Valley loves to hype "dream jobs" — the unicorn startups and tech giants everyone would love to join. I'm grateful I got to experience some of those "it" companies firsthand. For a while, it was exhilarating, but over time, I learned that no matter how cool the company or how impressive the perks are, there might come a day when you wake up and think, is this really it?

You may find yourself staying late to meet arbitrary deadlines, supporting products you're not passionate about, or feeling disconnected from the outcomes. That doesn't make you ungrateful; it makes you human.

Recognizing that even "perfect" roles can lose their sparkle gave me relief. This realization was a big reason I eventually left corporate life behind.

I feel blessed and want to pay it forward

I don't regret my time in Silicon Valley. It taught me incredible lessons, gave me the financial runway to start my own business, and connected me with brilliant people, but knowing these five things up front would've saved me from second-guessing myself, feeling guilty about not having a perfectly linear path, and putting all my self-worth into a job title.

Today, as a career coach, creator, and solopreneur who's replaced and surpassed her Big Tech salary, I can say that Silicon Valley is still a place of immense possibility — but go in with open eyes.

Jean Kang is the founder and CEO of Path to PM and a LinkedIn Learning Instructor who is paving the way for future program managers.

• Ashley Herd spent over 20 years working in HR before launching her own company.
• She said employees should consider the hardest parts of a new role before requesting it.
• Herd also shared key phrases to use when asking for a promotion or a new position at work.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Ashley Herd, the 43-year-old founder and CEO of Manager Method in Atlanta. It has been edited for length and clarity.

Before starting my own company, I spent more than 20 years working in HR. During that time, I saw employees pitch changes within their roles to their managers.

Changes can be small. For example, you might already be doing senior-level employee work but want the official promotion — whether that's a title change, a pay adjustment, or something similar.

Other times the change is more significant — like moving to an entirely different department or a new role within your company.

Either way, when it comes to asking for these changes at work, many people aren't sure how to approach them. Here are three steps for making the ask.

1. Consider everything the new role entails

When pitching a change to a manager, you have to start with yourself. Ask yourself why you want the change and what will that change look like.

Sometimes, people want something — like a new title — but don't fully consider what that title change or new role entails. Instead they envision what it will be like to share it on LinkedIn and tell others about it.

I've seen cases where people get what they wanted and then regret it because they had no idea what the job actually involved. To combat this, you need to self-reflect on what you truly want and speak with others who are already doing what you aspire to do.

You might ask them questions like: What do you think I should know that I might not already? What challenges make you want to leave this role?

It's good to hear the downsides because if you still want the role after that, you'll be better prepared and more likely to succeed.

2. Plan the conversation

After receiving internal clarity, it's time to research and plan a discussion with your manager.

Some people have a relationship with their manager where they can openly share the change they're considering, and it feels like a normal, trust-filled conversation.

Other times, those who don't have the best relationship with their manager might enter the conversation defensively. They might say something like, "This is how it's going to be, or I'm leaving," which really doesn't help their case.

No matter your relationship, it's important to plan the conversation with your manager's perspective in mind.

Anytime you want to change your role, your manager probably can't do anything about it alone. Instead, most likely, your manager will have to speak with their own boss, and they'll have to get them to say yes.

So, when planning your pitch, think to yourself: How can I make this an easy case for my boss to pitch? Maybe the solution is to reassure your manager that you'll help train your replacement or show your manager how you'll better meet the company's goals with the new role.

3. Consider saying these things

When making your pitch to your manager, you can tell them, "I put a proposal together, but before I frame it out, I wanted to get your input." That way, you're showing them you're prepared.

Then as you share the change you're proposing, you can try saying things like:

• "I know that (insert specific goals) are the organization's priorities. With what I'm proposing, I will be able to impact those goals even more."
• "I've created a library of resources and am happy to assist in transitioning the new hire."
• "What can I do to make this easier for you?"

Remember, it's not just about you moving into a new role or taking on new responsibilities. If you're leaving old responsibilities behind, you'll want to address how those tasks will be managed.

Also, some managers have very real egos, and they often worry that if you leave for a different role, you're leaving them personally.

So, when making your case, share that you'll still be available for the rest of the team and them. Make sure they know you're just getting separated, not divorced

Then after leaving the conversation, follow up with something written based on your discussion.

Understand companies have policies

Some organizations have policies where they don't give new promotions or titles within the course of six months or maybe a year. If organizations constantly have to retrain or rehire new staff because employees are moving around, it can be hard to get work done.

If your organization has regular review periods and you're outside of that window, it won't be as easy to get a yes.

Still, the conversation can be productive. During the review period, you could say:

• "I'd love to be in a senior management position in three months."
• "What can I do now to get there?"
• "What does that timeline realistically look like?"
• "What are the things I can do to help make that a yes?"

If it's a no, you have to ask yourself if you're at an organization you want to stay at.

No matter the answer, it's important to advocate for what you want. You will always be the best advocate for yourself, and sometimes it takes time, effort, trial, and error to get there.

If you're an HR professional and would like to share helpful career tips, please email Manseen Logan at [email protected].

The fusillade of major announcements from Meta this month — including the termination of its fact-checking and DEI programs and the ascension of its enigmatic content-moderation czar, Joel Kaplan, to head global policy — prompted a familiar churn of political reaction across the left and right. But virtually everyone agrees on one thing: Meta's changes are designed, at least in part, to please the incoming administration of Donald Trump.

That is why the most consequential announcement involves Joel Kaplan, Zuckerberg's tight-lipped political consigliere. For the coming years, Kaplan will be the face in your living room, justifying Meta's handling of whatever crisis, catastrophe, or hypocrisy the new Trump era is likely to ring in. He will speak at Davos, before committees, and on "Good Morning America," defending Meta publicly — and Mark Zuckerberg personally — from the right, the left, and quite possibly from Trump himself.

Kaplan is not widely known. Yet he arguably has done more to shape the modern internet — and quicken its consolidation with and capture of American politics — than any non-CEO in the world. With his ascension to the chief policy position at Meta, Kaplan etches his name into the pantheon of great political actors on the Washington stage — akin to a combination of Rahm Emanuel and Henry Kissinger, if they'd had every major global tech CEO on speed dial.

You can understand Kaplan's value to Meta by appreciating the two dimensions that account for his rise: Kaplan as the talented political fixer, and as the free-speech intellectual. Two distinct stories capture both dimensions of Kaplan's impact on Meta and on Zuckerberg.

Months before Trump was suspended from Facebook in 2021 following the attack of January 6, Trump's account was very nearly curtailed in an entirely separate ordeal. During the George Floyd protests and riots of 2020, Trump wrote a message on Facebook that ignominiously warned, "When the looting starts, the shooting starts." Per Facebook's rules, which prohibit incitement to violence, Trump's post possibly merited a takedown.

For Meta, this was a problem from hell. Not removing Trump's post would inflame liberal America. Removing it would enrage conservatives — not to mention the sitting president, who just days before had threatened to punish Meta for its alleged anti-conservative bias.

Then something miraculous happened: Trump called Zuckerberg. As Zuckerberg would tell it — mirroring a version later to be widely retold — Trump called Zuckerberg to plead his case, while Zuckerberg lectured Trump about using the platform responsibly. Hours later, another miracle followed: Trump wrote a follow-up post to finesse his point, quelling the discord.

The crisis was averted. Equally important, however, was the supposed lesson of this story: Trump — desperate to keep his account intact — needed Meta.

This story has been broadly reported. But stories that involve Kaplan tend to have a carefully hidden trap door.

As it turned out, there was a problem with this account: It was precisely backward. In the early morning of May 29, 2020, White House staffers gathered around on speakerphone and listened in disbelief to the voice on the other end: It was Mark Zuckerberg — calling them, at Kaplan's arrangement — asking for a personal word with Trump. Those familiar with this call would later say Zuckerberg's request was tinged with vulnerability, as he and Kaplan, also on the call, described the inevitable liberal revolt at Meta's headquarters if something weren't done about Trump's post. "I have a staff problem," Zuckerberg explained, according to those with knowledge of the call. (Meta has previously denied Zuckerberg said anything to this effect, maintaining that Zuckerberg was unequivocal in condemning the post.) When Trump rang Zuckerberg's cell later that afternoon, it wasn't contrition he was showing Zuckerberg — it was a favor.

This story, and its turns, illuminates several key things. First, it suggests the lengths Meta will go to convince the public that Trump — just like its 3 billion users — was dependent upon Meta for relevance. It shows the cunning of Kaplan in finding a way to project that image — through a half story that was widely repeated in official Washington — while simultaneously defusing a serious crisis (Kaplan had put out a "four-alarm fire," one of his former staffers previously told me).

Above all, it illustrates the dependency that animates Zuckerberg and Trump's relationship, and hints at what direction it runs in: Meta needs Trump — perhaps a lot more than Trump needs Meta.

For much of his life, Kaplan has played exactly this sort of role: attendant lord and advisor to princes. After finishing at the top of his class at Harvard Law School and serving as an officer in the Marine Corps, Kaplan clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; played a pivotal role in the events leading to Bush v. Gore; and became a senior advisor to George Bush during all eight years. He was among the closest advisors to his longtime friend Brett Kavanaugh, counseling the judge at the darkest hour of his confirmation fiasco.

But it's his role serving Zuckerberg that is the male relationship that defines Kaplan's professional life and achievements. Since joining Meta in 2011, Kaplan has helped navigate Zuckerberg's path and entry into official Washington. Initially, that entailed accompanying a young Zuckerberg to President Barack Obama's Oval Office, or overseeing Zuckerberg's preparation for congressional hearings. But with the explosion of MAGA, Kaplan's role grew dramatically, charting a path that would bring Zuckerberg and a fast-changing Republican Party into something resembling — if not goodwill — then a mutual accord.

Half of this Zuckerberg achieved himself, by slotting Kaplan into a major role overseeing content moderation. But the human side of Washington — never Zuckerberg's strong suit — was Kaplan's métier: arranging Oval Office huddles with Zuckerberg and Trump, or organizing a series of private dinners with mostly conservative (and some liberal) influencers. Kaplan, as Meta staffers and Washington Republicans told me, made sure that MAGA Republicans knew they always had a seat at Zuckerberg's proverbial table. (Meta did not provide new comment for this story.)

This growing authority inside Meta left many idealist staffers convinced of Kaplan's thralldom to conservative ideology. But Kaplan is also beloved and defended by many Democrats at Meta and throughout Washington — a fact that explains, in part, Meta's successful evasion of any significant tech regulation during the Biden presidency.

And yet Kaplan's most remarkable achievement is playing out right now: the extraordinary — once unthinkable — political romance between Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump. A decade ago, the chasm separating these individuals seemed as insurmountably wide as that between the Capulets and the Montagues. Yet the two men have spent years running toward each other, barreling through and against the gauntlet of their respective tribes: Zuckerberg through the leftist principles of the Bay, Trump through Republican Washington.

In this slow-motion marriage plot, Joel Kaplan is their Friar Laurence, bringing his artful guile and influence to bear in the improbable effort to knit their two families together. Kaplan has "helped make sure the ties were never irrevocably broken — even through Trump being deplatformed," observes Katie Harbath, a Republican who served as public policy director under Kaplan for a decade and who now heads the tech consulting firm Anchor Change. "Joel was sort of the captain of that ship."

Beginning with Trump's rise in 2016, Kaplan grew into another significant role: a de facto superintendent of the platform's rules around speech and content moderation. It's in this role — as a legal intellectual offering a distinct philosophy of free expression — that colleagues say Kaplan has shaped the company publicly, and Zuckerberg personally.

It was Kaplan, for example, who appeared on Fox News last week to explain the end of the fact-checking program, characterizing the decision as an effort to "reset the balance in favor of free expression." This echoed Zuckerberg's own video announcement, in which he lamented that the program had become "just too politically biased."

These comments are of a piece with Kaplan's own philosophy on free expression, which colleagues have summed up in the adage by Justice Louis Brandeis: that the remedy for false or misleading speech isn't "enforced silence," but instead "more speech."

It is tempting to view the complex issues at Meta as a simple proxy battle between "pro" and "anti" free expression. The fact-checking program was not without errors, as any complex program will be. And it is a genuine win for free expression that restrictions on user speech — on topics such as immigration, or gender and sexuality — are now lifted. Same for the nixing of DEI programs, which too often function to manufacture consensus on live issues at the internal staff level.

But the truth is there have long been meaningful objections to Kaplan's — and increasingly Zuckerberg's — Brandeisian "more speech" rationale that Meta so often proffers for its decisions.

The first is that, when it comes to political expression, the basis for Meta's decisions often manifests not as high principle, but as political expediency.

The fact-checking program is a case in point. Few programs were so vocally targeted — and fervently manipulated — by conservative critics. For any conservative media publisher dinged for misinformation by Meta's algorithm, Kaplan's cellphone effectively functioned as a personalized, interlocutory appeals process. Such was the case with articles by Breitbart, or the Instagram posts of Charlie Kirk, who successfully appealed to Kaplan to intervene, and to have their flags or strikes removed. Or in the case of Meta's filter against "Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior," which Kaplan and other executives quickly froze, around the time they learned that its classifier had begun flagging posts from The Daily Wire and Sinclair.

The second problem is that Kaplan's defenders have fallen under a common misreading of Brandeis. Unlike Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., his fellow Supreme Court justice— who generally prized individual autonomy — Brandeis believed the ultimate purpose of free expression was the preservation of democratic self-government itself. The reason "more speech" offers an effective remedy is that, in Brandeis' view, the freedom of unlimited speech was inextricably married with duty: what he called "the political duty of public discussion." Duty is a word that generally conveys the foregoing of certain liberties, to achieve a higher purpose. The Brandeisian view, in essence, described the First Amendment as a kind of bargain struck with Americans at large: In exchange for a near-bottomless freedom to purvey unlimited speech, Americans accepted an implied duty to yield to the necessary prerogatives of well-ordered public discussion.

Yet under Kaplan's Policy team, content decisions at Meta consistently tacked away from Brandeis' view. Perhaps no controversy illustrates the point better than a project called Common Ground.

Conceived by Meta staff in response to the 2016 election, Common Ground was a proposal to remake Facebook into a forum for healthier public discussion. In a bundle of proposed algorithm changes — detailed in internal memos — the program would replace users' self-segregation with more "exposure to cross-cutting viewpoints," downplay "incivility," recommend that users join more politically diverse groups, and boost news outlets with high bipartisan readership.

Though perhaps idealistic-sounding, Common Ground was not a left-wing chimera. In fact, its premise was drawn in part from the research of the New York University psychologist Jonathan Haidt — a famously vocal critic of progressive ideology in college campuses and workplaces — whose findings Meta staffers had studied rigorously. It was precisely the sort of project that would make liberals more likely to encounter, say, a Wall Street Journal op-ed article opposing mask mandates.

Kaplan and his team, however, correctly sensed that such proposals — no matter how "nonpartisan" in fact — would be castigated as partisan in appearance. In internal review sessions, Kaplan's team raised its concerns that the proposal would have a disparate effect on conservative users.

But the true killer lurked in a crucial detail: Exposure to this more ennobled strain of public discussion tended to reduce the engagement that users had with the platform. In a business model in which enragement equals engagement, it turns out, Brandeisian discussion is an unwarranted expense.

Kaplan's defenders backstop these choices with a common refrain: Kaplan's team has ensured Meta's content policies remain "defensible." By "defensible," Meta staffers intend to invoke the importance of public accountability. What they tend to mean, though, is policies that can adequately be explained during a grilling before Congress — an understandable concern for a company that's been hauled before Congress more than 30 times.

That is perfectly plausible reasoning. But one thing it certainly isn't is a vindication of First Amendment values — a bulwark in the Constitution whose singular purpose, after all, is to prevent meddling by Congress, and government generally. Zuckerberg now says he regrets caving to pressure from the Biden administration during the COVID pandemic. But does anyone doubt that, the next time Trump calls Zuckerberg, the CEO won't be all ears? (Just as he was avidly listening when Jared Kushner similarly pressured Zuckerberg in 2020, arm-twisting repeatedly to cooperate with Trump's COVID response.) Kaplan is there to ensure the message, even if not followed upon, gets through loud and clear.

Putting a chief Washington lobbyist largely in charge of speech policy may be politically savvy. But it is the opposite of how a company would take seriously its obligations to free expression — an invitation, essentially, to a Republican Congress, or a Democratic White House, to inject politicians' notions about public discourse into your news feed. "One thing I notice," Harbath notes thoughtfully, "is that after every major election since 2016, Mark has done this big recalibration about how the company handles content, based upon the electoral results."

Critics of Kaplan's supposed right-leaning bias, then, miss the point. It's that Kaplan and Zuckerberg's commitment to Brandesian free expression, as Gandhi might say, would make for an excellent idea. And some of Meta's changes — relaxing the restrictions on immigration and gender — are indeed aligned with liberal principles of free expression. But unavoidably, the platform remains a Death Star of bad reasoning, amplifying the worst of the left and right. Nor would Brandeis recognize Kaplan's enthusiasm for the incoming President Trump and his administration as "big defenders of free expression" — a man who sues local newspapers as retribution for polls, publicly invites violence on journalists, and suggests the US military shoot protesters for exercising their First Amendment rights — perhaps the most anti-First Amendment candidate for president since Woodrow Wilson. Both on the platform and off, Meta's commitment reflects the opposite of Brandeis' well-ordered public discussion: a world of all freedom, and no duty.

One silver lining to Meta's termination of fact-checking, then, is that it has the potential to clarify a new consensus: one that recognizes the futility of the agonizing efforts of the past 10 years attempting to liberalize social media — as fruitless and naive as environmentalists who implore oil and gas companies to cease being oil and gas companies. Scholars such as Yuval Noah Harari and Jonathan Rauch have separately argued that social media at scale is inherently inimical to liberal values — and that its mob-like pathologies, with its viral lies and conspiratorial reasoning, eerily resemble the same tendencies of pre-Enlightenment, medieval Europe.

That sort of tragedy can be laid at the feet only of generations, not individuals. And that is the deep and common bond that Zuckerberg and Trump share. Both are men whose vast seizure of power was made possible by the energy and unique pathology of the mob — allowing one to build a company, the other a political movement — as they leveraged its bizarre vise grip on our attention along with the mob's enduring ability, as Holmes warned, to "set fire to reason." In bringing these men to power, the best and brightest of their generation — Joel Kaplan, Sheryl Sandberg, Peter Thiel, and Elon Musk, nearly all the same age — ushered in a new strain of faithlessness, turning social media into a prison, and making our public life a hostage of the internet.

Zuckerberg and Kaplan's announcement is not an embrace of the right, or repudiation of the left. It's another example of what Meta does too often: wrap its business and political decisions into the language of liberal values and free expression. In reality, Meta does have a clear policy around free expression — but it doesn't follow the philosophical quotations of Louis Brandeis, or Oliver Wendell Holmes. Rather, under Zuckerberg and Kaplan, Meta's North Star will always faithfully resemble the old chestnut from Lyndon B. Johnson: "Power is where power goes."

Benjamin Wofford has written for Wired, Politico Magazine, Vox, and Rolling Stone, and is a graduate of Stanford Law School.

If you are betting on the California wildfires, I don't know what to tell you. Go outside (if it's safe). Do some reflecting. Call a gambling-addiction hotline, probably. Though I suppose the impulse to wager on destruction isn't all bettors' fault — gambling companies have people right where they want them, placing wagers on things most of us never would have imagined just a few years ago. We're days into the new year, and it already feels like the gambling boom has gone too far.

In case you missed it, the prediction market Polymarket is letting people place bets on aspects of the fires that have ravaged the Los Angeles area. The platform set various markets for questions like how long it would take the first fire to be contained, how fast the various blazes would burn, and where they would spread.

The cryptocurrency-based market — which is off-limits for American gamblers, though some try to circumvent it with a VPN — seemed to recognize that this might not go over well. In a disclaimer on the site, Polymarket says the point of its prediction markets is to "harness the wisdom of the crowd to create accurate, unbiased forecasts for the most important events impacting society." The "devastating" fires were one such event in which Polymarket said it could "yield invaluable real-time answers to those directly impacted in ways traditional media cannot." In other words, if you want to know whether your house is about to burn down, check what a group of anonymous gamblers outside the US think — hopefully in addition to the news and local authorities and, you know, your own eyes.

The idea of bettors trying to make a quick buck when lives and livelihoods are at stake is morally fraught. It's also a sign of the times: Gambling is becoming increasingly common, and in the process, the lines around what's appropriate, logical, and ethical are becoming increasingly murky. If 2024 was the year we asked whether gambling culture in the US had gone too far, 2025 might be the year we get an answer.

It's tempting to look down on gamblers who take things too far, depending on your tolerance for that kind of stuff. But the problem with blaming individuals for getting in over their heads is that you miss the forest for the trees. Betting platforms and the gambling industry are designed to suck customers in and get them to bet at higher rates and in different ways.

While Polymarket may be operating in a bit of a gray area, even the formal, highly regulated platforms in the US are enticing people to develop a deeper relationship with betting. Businesses want to cross-sell — once Caesars gets you into its sports-betting pipeline, it would very much like to direct you to the casino. DraftKings is launching a subscription service that draws in bettors with the possibility of making extra money on super-long-shot bets. Delta Air Lines also recently announced a partnership with the sportsbook that could integrate its offerings or its branding into the gaming options on airplane seatbacks, though the details are vague. These innovations don't rival something as clearly problematic as betting on fires, but they show that gambling companies are succeeding at getting into more nooks and crannies of society.

In a statement to Business Insider, a DraftKings spokesperson said that the sports betting industry is "rigorously regulated" and that the company operates in "strict compliance" with the regulations of every jurisdiction it's in. "Equating DraftKings with unregulated prediction markets — particularly those that fall outside the scope of US regulation — is not only an egregious misrepresentation but also an insult to the integrity of regulators and responsible, law-abiding operators," the spokesperson said.

It's impossible to ignore the recent cultural shift when it comes to gambling. After decades of operating in the shadows, sports gambling is everywhere: Americans are thought to have wagered some $150 billion on sports in 2024, up from about $120 billion in 2023, and ads for gambling are almost inescapable during sporting events in many parts of the country. Beyond sports, some operators, including Robinhood, offer betting on things like elections. Polymarket's bread and butter may be elections, but it's also letting people wager on whether we'll see a new pandemic in 2025 or whether Israel and Hamas will agree to a cease-fire. People are even treating areas that are nominally not gambling, like the stock market, crypto, and even restaurant reservations, as if they're a casino. However you feel about gambling — maybe you're OK with it, maybe you think it's evil — the speed with which the lines around it are moving can make your head spin.

A spokesperson for Polymarket told me that the company didn't generate fees or revenue from the fire-related markets (or any of its markets) and described the markets as "a way to distinguish the signal from the noise in a news environment starved of quantitative data." They added: "These markets address the same questions being discussed across all of cable news and X. We've proven that markets can be an invaluable alternative information source for those seeking real-time quantitative data."

The fire-related markets are small — the largest one, about how many acres will burn, had about $275,000 in it on Friday afternoon. For comparison, more than $400 million has been bet on who will be inaugurated as US president on January 20. Why do this at all then? The smaller the prediction market, meaning the less money bet on it, the less the wisdom-of-the-crowd idea holds. That flies in the face of the argument that this is some noble endeavor to get information — it's just a handful of incredibly online gawkers betting on the outcome of an event that is devastating for thousands of people.

The pervasiveness of betting — both in what you can gamble on and where you can gamble — is changing our relationship with it. In a 2024 survey of US adults by the American Gaming Association, 55% of respondents said they had participated in some sort of gambling over the past year, up from 49% the year before. And Gallup surveys suggest a healthy majority of Americans see gambling as morally acceptable. At the extreme, the gambling industry envisions a future where people will bet on everything and will be able to create markets for anything. Perhaps someday you'll be able to create a mini-market for people to bet on whether it will rain on your wedding day. On the one hand, whatever, maybe that's just an extra bit of fun to make the day more exciting. On the other hand, you could just check the weather and otherwise enjoy your wedding without making it into a money-making event for random people on the internet. Plenty of people are able to enjoy watching sports sans gambling as well, even as the sportsbooks spend a lot of money to convince people that betting really ups the fun quotient.

There are going to be a lot of "tipping point" moments for gambling in the months and years to come. For a lot of people, betting is a newfangled way to find some enjoyment and spice up life. But finding where the boundaries are — socially and legally — is a critical process where there aren't easy, straightforward answers. When we can bet on more and more things in more and more places, it's fair to ask: Just how far do we want gambling to go?

Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

• Blue Origin was set to launch its New Glenn rocket on Monday morning.
• The launch was postponed due to a "vehicle subsystem issue," Blue Origin said.
• "We're reviewing opportunities for our next launch attempt," the company said.

Rocket company Blue Origin postponed its highly anticipated New Glenn rocket launch on Monday morning, citing a need to "troubleshoot a vehicle subsystem issue."

The launch, originally scheduled for a three-hour window from 1 a.m. to 4 a.m. Eastern Time, was repeatedly delayed before it was ultimately postponed.

"We're standing down on today's launch attempt to troubleshoot a vehicle subsystem issue that will take us beyond our launch window," Blue Origin wrote in an X post. "We're reviewing opportunities for our next launch attempt."

Ahead of the scheduled launch, Blue Origin's leadership — including its founder, Jeff Bezos — awaited the rocket's blastoff at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

A liftoff time of 1:31 a.m. was first set at the beginning of the launch's livestream. It was then delayed from 1:52 a.m. to 2:07 a.m., 2:27 a.m., 2:48 a.m., and finally, 3:15 a.m.

At press time, Blue Origin has not confirmed a new launch date.

Before the launch was postponed, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had wished Blue Origin well. SpaceX remains the only company to have recovered and reused a rocket's booster stages.

Ahead of the initially scheduled launch time, Blue Origin said on X that the company hoped to have the New Glenn "reach orbit safely."

"Anything beyond that is icing on the cake. We know landing the booster on our first try offshore in the Atlantic is ambitious—but we're going for it," the company wrote on X early Monday morning. "No matter what happens, we'll learn, refine, and apply that knowledge to our next launch."

A successful launch would have greatly boosted Bezos' spacefaring ambitions for Blue Origin.

Besides the New Glenn rocket, Blue Origin has developed other space vehicles, including the New Shepard.

But one of New Shepard's uncrewed missions failed on September 12, 2022, when Blue Origin lost a first-stage booster around one minute into the flight.

That resulted in the New Shepard getting grounded by the Federal Aviation Administration. Blue Origin had to take 21 corrective actions, including redesigning some components, before the New Shepard could fly again.

Bezos founded Blue Origin in 2000. The billionaire told podcaster Lex Fridman in a 2023 interview that he stepped down as Amazon's CEO in 2021 because he wanted to focus on Blue Origin.

"I've turned the CEO role over, and the primary reason I did that is so that I could spend time on Blue Origin, adding some energy, some sense of urgency," Bezos told Fridman.

Representatives for Blue Origin did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• The latest US sanctions on Russia's energy sector impact China and India, altering trade dynamics.
• The sanctions target Russian oil giants and tankers, raising oil prices to a four-month high.
• China and India may seek oil from other regions, while Russia might offer discounts.

The US' latest move to hit Russia's energy revenues is changing up the industry's global trade flows.

On Friday, the US Treasury Department— together with the UK — slapped new sanctions against Russia's key energy sector, including restrictions against oil giants Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas.

The Biden administration also imposed sanctions on 183 tankers associated with Russia's oil trade. Last year, that group of ships transported about one-quarter of Russia's energy exports, mostly crude oil, Goldman Sachs analysts estimated in a Sunday note.

Buyers from China and India — Russia's top oil customers — are likely to be impacted by the new sanctions, changing the world's energy trade dynamics.

Traders in China and India look to the Middle East, Americas

China will be impacted by the latest sanctions because most targeted tankers ship oil to the country, wrote Matthew Wright, the lead freight analyst at analytics firm Kpler, on Friday.

The sanctions, which would impact oil shipping, trading, and insurance, sent prices of the commodity up to a four-month high on Monday.

International benchmark Brent crude oil futures were 1.7% higher at $81.15 a barrel at 2.10 a.m. ET. The US benchmark West Texas Intermediate futures were up 1.9% at $78 a barrel.

Both Brent and WTI oil futures are up 8% this year to date.

Traders told Reuters that China and India will be forced by the new sanctions to seek non-sanctioned oil from the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas.

A Singapore-based trader told the news agency the sanctioned tankers shipped close to 900,000 barrels per day of Russian crude oil to China over the past 12 months and that these exports are going to "drop off a cliff."

Even before this round of sanctions, oil traders in China and India have been anticipating higher curbs on Russian oil. They have increased crude oil purchases from the Middle East and the Atlantic Basin, Bloomberg reported on Friday.

These latest developments illustrate the fast-changing pace of the world's energy flow since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 triggered sweeping sanctions against the energy giant.

They also come just days before US President-elect Donald Trump takes office. The incoming American leader has pledged to lift energy output and boost the US' energy exports.

Russia is a top supplier of crude oil to both China and India.

Not a 'game-changer'

The incoming US administration's stance on the energy sector is one reason why recent oil price gains may not continue, wrote Vishnu Varathan, Mizuho's head of macro research for Asia, excluding Japan.

Varathan said in a Monday note that while the latest oil sanctions against Russia are boosting the market, they are not a game-changer.

Not only is the potential of higher US supply expected to hold up the market, but demand from China — the world's second-largest economy — has also slowed amid prolonged economic malaise.

Goldman Sachs analysts also cited the high spare capacity in oil as a factor that could weigh on prices.

Meanwhile, Russia is likely to pull out countermeasures to the US' latest sanctions package.

"Russian oil can discount to incentivize continued shipping by a dynamic shadow fleet and continued purchases by price-sensitive buyers in new or existing destination countries, with both the ships and buyers being less sensitive to Western sanctions," Goldman Sachs analysts wrote.

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom is already looking ahead to an "LA 2.0" post-wildfire.
• He said he is "organizing a Marshall Plan" to hasten the city's recovery efforts.
• The fires, which started last week, burned through more than 40,300 acres of land and resulted in at least 24 deaths.

As the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles continue to rage, Gov. Gavin Newsom is looking toward rebuilding an "LA 2.0" post-fire.

Newsom was asked in an NBC "Meet the Press" interview on Saturday if California would be ready to host the World Cup, the Super Bowl, and the Olympics over the next couple of years in the aftermath of the wildfires.

Speaking against the backdrop of a fire-ravaged neighborhood, Newsom said that he's already "organizing a Marshall Plan" and already has a team "looking and reimagining LA 2.0."

The Marshall Plan harkens back to the post-World War 2 period when President Truman signed the Economic Recovery Act of 1948. The act saw more than $13 billion invested in rebuilding Western Europe's economies, bringing investments into the region, and stimulating the US economy by building a market for American goods.

When asked for details of the new "Marshall Plan," Newsom said he was talking to city, civic, business, nonprofit, and labor leaders about recovery efforts and working to "galvanize the community."

"We have got to be thinking three weeks, three months, three years ahead; at the same time, we're focusing on the immediacy, which is life safety and property," he told NBC.

Representatives for Newsom did not provide further comments in response to queries from Business Insider.

Newsom said in the interview that the wildfires will likely be one of the worst natural disasters in the country's history, in terms of the costs associated with it and its scale and scope.

AccuWeather, a weather forecasting service, estimated the total economic damage to land between $52 and $57 billion. JPMorgan analysts estimated that insured losses could reach $20 billion.

The wildfires have ravaged over 40,300 acres of land across Los Angeles. At press time, at least 24 people have died, and according to CalFire statistics, more than 12,300 structures have been damaged.

As the fire passed through the wealthy Pacific Palisades neighborhood, the homes of several Hollywood A-listers, like Paris Hilton, Milo Ventimiglia, and Billy Crystal, burned down.

The two largest fires, the Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire, are only 11% and 27% contained, per CalFire.

The governor said he had also ordered an investigation into why fire hydrants ran dry and lost water pressure in the Pacific Palisades area of Los Angeles, hindering firefighting efforts.

Newsom's latest statements come as he faces criticism from President-elect Donald Trump for his handling of the wildfires.

In a Truth Social post, Trump called Newsom "incompetent" and said he was to blame for the wildfires.

Newsom said in the NBC interview that Trump's comment was "inaccurate."

He then invited Trump to "come out" to California and "take a look for himself." Newsom's team has also launched a fact-checking website to combat misinformation about the fires.

• Dutch pension fund ABP sold its Tesla stake over Musk's pay and working conditions at the company.
• ABP disagreed with Musk's compensation package and voted against it in June.
• The fund called the pay package "controversial and exceptionally high."

A Dutch civil service pension fund sold its entire stake in Tesla over disapproval of CEO Elon Musk's pay package and working conditions at the company.

Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP, one of Europe's largest pension funds, sold 2.8 million shares in the electric vehicle maker in September because it disagreed with Musk's pay package, Dutch outlet Het Financieele Dagblad reported Friday. The report did not detail the fund's specific concerns about labor conditions at the company.

A spokesperson for ABP, which manages $552 billion overall, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Bloomberg reported that ABP's Tesla stake was valued at about $585 million.

In a statement to the NL Times, ABP said "we cannot and do not need to invest in everything," and that the divestment was not politically motivated. Musk has been a prominent supporter of President-elect Donald Trump, and is co-leading a commission called the Department of Government Efficiency.

In 2018, Tesla's board and shareholders voted in favor of a performance-based compensation plan. The same year, a shareholder sued Tesla and Musk, arguing that Musk influenced the board's decision through his personal relationships with board members, including his brother. In January 2024, a Delaware judge ruled to strike down Musk's compensation package, siding with a shareholder. The stock option-based package could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

In June, the EV maker held a second vote, which led to shareholder approval of Musk's pay. ABP voted against the pay package and called it "controversial and exceptionally high."

Last month, the judge, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, once again ruled against the compensation package, saying that Tesla's June shareholder vote wasn't enough to pass the package.

Tesla's Model Y was the best-selling car in the Netherlands in 2024, but the carmaker's sales have been declining in Europe. New Tesla car registrations from January to November 2024 fell over 15% compared to the same period in 2023, according to European Automobile Manufacturers Association data.

Tesla is worth about $1.27 trillion and its stock has risen about 74% in the past year.

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• DOGE plans to deploy its staffers to major government agencies after Donald Trump takes office.
• Two DOGE representatives will be embedded at each agency, The New York Times reported.
• The commission has been hiring since it was announced in November.

Elon Musk's government efficiency commission is looking to embed staffers at government agencies to lead cost cutting efforts.

Most major government agencies will be given two representatives from the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, after President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing about a dozen people who are familiar with DOGE's operations.

Those who aren't deployed will instead be stationed at the US Digital Service, a branch of the White House that provides IT consulting services to federal agencies, the outlet reported.

Then-President Barack Obama described the USDS as a "startup at the White House" when he created the agency in 2014.

The Times added that DOGE could also have an office at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The OMB prepares the president's budget request for Congress.

Musk did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

In November, Trump announced that DOGE would be co-led by Musk and biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy. The commission, Trump said in his announcement, is set to conclude its work by July 4, 2026.

DOGE kicked off its recruitment efforts in the same month. The commission started an account on Musk's social network X and asked applicants to send in their CVs via direct message.

Thus far, the commission said it has been hiring for software engineering, information security engineering, HR, IT, and finance roles.

Back in October, Musk said that DOGE would help the government to save at least $2 trillion, though he didn't specify where the savings would come from. The federal government spent $6.75 trillion in the 2024 fiscal year.

Last week, Musk said that saving $2 trillion would be "the best-case outcome" for DOGE, adding that his commission had a "good shot" at saving $1 trillion.

"If we can drop the budget deficit from $2 trillion to $1 trillion and free up the economy to have additional growth such that the output of goods and services keeps pace with the increase in the money supply, then there will be no inflation. So that, I think, would be an epic outcome," Musk told Mark Penn, the chairman and CEO of marketing company Stagwell, in an interview on January 8.

• Ukraine has been releasing excerpts of what its forces say is a North Korean soldier's diary.
• They include a stick-figure sketch of using a comrade as "bait" to shoot down a drone.
• Other entries include musings on class struggles and a confession for stealing undisclosed Russian items.

Excerpts from a North Korean soldier's diary released by Ukraine show a glimpse at how Pyongyang's troops in Russia believed they could defend against drones and artillery strikes.

Ukraine's special forces have been releasing excerpts of the diary since Christmas week, saying the entries were written by a now-deceased North Korean private named Gyeong Hong Jong.

The latest of these, published on Thursday, appeared to feature the young soldier confessing that he was stealing items from his Russian allies to sell. He did not specify what the stolen goods were but wrote that he had been caught.

"While working in the barracks, I thought that no one was watching me and put the Russians' things in my pocket," the diary excerpt said, per Ukraine's special forces.

"I will no longer trade in other people's things. I will heroically advance in the forefront and destroy the enemy," the soldier added.

Other entries released by Ukraine included praises of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and musings on class struggle.

"Longing for my homeland, having left the warm embrace of my dear father and mother here on Russian land. I celebrate the birthday of my closest comrade Song Ji Myong," another entry read, per a translation by The Wall Street Journal.

One of the earliest entries, published by Ukraine on December 26, featured a stick-figure drawing of what the soldier described as "How to eliminate a drone."

The simple illustration showed a figure standing upright on open ground while another two stick figures fired at a quadcopter drone.

"If a UAV is spotted, gather in groups of three," the diary read, per The Journal's translation. "One person must act as bait to lure the drone while the other two take aim and neutralize it with precision shooting. The bait must maintain a distance of seven meters from the drone. The other two should prepare to shoot down the drone from a distance of 10 to 12 meters. When the bait stands still, the drone will stop and it can be shot down."

Ukraine's special forces said the North Korean soldier also wrote of how to avoid artillery strikes. An excerpt of his diary said that Pyongyang's troops were supposed to "disperse in small groups" if fired upon by artillery.

The excerpt also said he could hide in the location of "the previous hit" because he believed artillery doesn't repeatedly strike the exact same spot.

Business Insider couldn't independently verify the authenticity of the diary entries. Ukraine posted photos of what it said were the soldier's corpse and passport. The Journal also cited a former North Korean soldier and a former South Korean major general who said the choice of words in the diary aligned with the ideology and vernacular of North Korea's troops.

The soldier's diary could give insight into how North Korean forces are adapting battlefield doctrine for combat in Russia.

The West worries that Pyongyang's involvement will allow its forces to glean valuable lessons from battling Ukraine, especially as they face off against American and European equipment and encounter drone warfare.

Dorothy Camille Shea, the deputy US ambassador to the UN, said on Wednesday that Pyongyang "is significantly benefiting from receiving Russian military equipment, technology, and experience, rendering it more capable of waging war against its neighbors."

Western and South Korean intelligence says that 12,000 North Korean troops are stationed and fighting in Kursk, a Russian border region that Ukraine attacked in the summer of 2024.

Moscow hasn't addressed the presence of Pyongyang's troops on its soil, but Ukraine has increasingly been trying to cast a spotlight on North Korea's direct involvement in the war.

Most recently, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy published images of who he said were two captured North Korean soldiers. He did not provide evidence that they were North Korean, though Seoul's intelligence service backed up his claim.

"This was not an easy task: Russian forces and other North Korean military personnel usually execute their wounded to erase any evidence of North Korea's involvement in the war against Ukraine," Zelenskyy wrote. He has said that around 3,000 North Korean soldiers were wounded or killed.

Thousands of North Korean troops serve as a valuable source of manpower for Russia, which is relying on mass infantry assaults along the front lines to whittle down Ukraine's defenses.

Still, Pyongyang's reinforcements are still few compared to the over 600,000 people that Ukraine and the West believe Moscow has lost.

Russia is believed to be providing Kim with much-needed finances, economic support, food, and technology in exchange for the latter's troops.

• Microsoft Outlook is an email platform with productivity features like calendar and file-sharing.
• Microsoft discontinued its old email platforms, MSN and Hotmail, and folded them into Outlook.
• Outlook is free for personal accounts, but paid subscriptions offer greater storage and security.

In case you hadn't noticed, Microsoft has a released a lot of software over the past five decades. From its groundbreaking Windows operating system to its search engine Bing to stalwart programs like Word and Excel, now a part of the subscription-based Microsoft 365 suite, the company is a juggernaut of the software industry.

And when a company has released a plethora of programs, it's no surprise that the company has cancelled, merged, or rebranded many programs, too.

What is Microsoft Outlook?

Microsoft Outlook is, first and foremost, an email platform, but it goes well beyond just sending and receiving electronic mail. It also features a calendar, an easy way to store and manage contact information, file sharing of data saved in the cloud, and schedule and task tracking.

Microsoft Outlook is free to use for personal email and calendars, but there are some limitations. For example, a free Outlook account can only store up to 15 GB of mail, and that cap can be surprisingly easy to reach. Also, advanced security features are only available with a paid subscription.

Using Outlook is a great way to streamline your work and home life, keeping yourself up-to-date and aware of appointments, assignments, travel, deadlines, and more. You can set it up such that flight or hotel reservations are automatically added to your calendar, so that it will remind you of scheduled events, and you can set it to flag important messages for you — and to screen out the unimportant, too.

What happened to Hotmail and MSN?

Both Hotmail and MSN, also known as MSN Messenger, have been discontinued for a number of years, folded into other products. Chat messaging platform MSN was first released in 1999 and was rebranded as Windows Live Messenger in 2005.

Though it was used by hundreds of millions of people each month, following the acquisition of Skype in 2011, Microsoft found its own messaging platform redundant. The company shut the messenger service once known as MSN down for good in 2013. MSN email addresses still work, but they are managed via Outlook

Interestingly enough, the year 2013 also tolled the death knell for Hotmail. The mail platform was founded in 1996 and acquired by Microsoft the following year, and would enjoy nearly 17-year run until it was folded into Microsoft Outlook. You can still get an email address using @hotmail.com, but you'll need to sign up for it via Microsoft Outlook.

Is Microsoft discontinuing Outlook?

There are no plans for Microsoft to discontinue its Outlook platform. In fact, the company announced that as of the end of 2024, its Mail and Calendar applications would no longer be supported and that their functions would be rolled into Outlook, so Microsoft is putting even more of the proverbial eggs in the Outlook basket.

Outlook vs. Gmail

From contact management to calendar services to, of course, email, Microsoft Outlook and the Google Workspace, which includes Gmail, Google Meet, Google Drive, and Google Docs, have a lot of crossovers.

Google's professional suite is great for collaborative teams, offering more storage space and easy ways to connect, work on shared documents, and to swap files. Alternatively, people wanting advanced email features and numerous optional automations might prefer Outlook.

Both are superb workflow suites; it's truly a personal call.

• As the mom of two tweens, I really wish schools would keep snow days.
• I have so many great memories from those unexpected magical days growing up.
• I feel like my kids spend too much time on screens for school already; let them have fun.

As temperatures drop, I hope school administrators call for at least one "old-fashioned" snow day this season. I think it's important that kids across the country — including my own two pre-teens — experience the style of snow days that I did growing up, and not because I got to stay inside relaxing. In fact, I learned surprising lessons in those days about history, science, and art.

Lawmakers in states including Iowa, New Jersey, and Virginia have introduced bills to make it easier for districts to replace traditional days off with remote classes. I hope this doesn't become the preference. Kids will lose out if they're robbed of the unexpected time to be curious.

I have fond memories of my snow days

When I think back to the snow days I enjoyed growing up in the 1980s — in the farm-filled New Jersey town of Freehold — I picture long strings of glowing red lights.

My dad would drive my brother and me to Monmouth Battlefield State Park, where lit-up displays at the visitors' center outlined routes that Washington's Army and British soldiers took to get to the bloody battle in which as many as 400 died. We were actually there because the hilly park has become a popular sledding destination, but after we took turns careening toward the woods on our creaky Flexible Flyer, we'd head inside to thaw out and study the displays.

I remember learning about the long battle that took place on a hot day, pondering what it was like for soldiers to battle the elements through the seasons as they battled each other. Reading history in a textbook was one thing; seeing a display or demonstration was more impactful.

I learned a lot while out of the classroom

When winter came, I used to write the forecasts on a wall calendar near my bed. Tracking temperature trends, probabilities, and records is a terrific introduction to the principles of empirical evidence.

One of my best lessons from a snow day was about small joys and art. I was 9 years old, gazing out my kitchen window as I sipped soup, and I spied — on a snow-covered pine — a cardinal sitting sentinel, observing the terrain. The contrast of the red on white was so beautiful that I longed for a camera, but my dad never let me use our cheap Kodak 110. I vowed to get a camera of my own someday, and a few years later, I bought a 35-millimeter with babysitting funds. To this day, I take photos for my job. I love framing and capturing a scene to share the beauty with others.

Nature's handiwork can be surprising, powerful, and treacherous. I want my kids to appreciate all of it. It's hard to watch the snow fall, build with it, and play in it when chained to a Chromebook all day.

It can be hard as a working parent

As a working mom, I understand the nervousness of watching the forecast and wondering about childcare if schools close. Inclement weather days should, of course, be used sparingly. But when safety precautions force a closure anyway, the default shouldn't always be remote learning. Those days can be just as challenging for a caregiver.

Some traditions aren't coming back. I remember the wonder and joy of gazing at the streetlights when a storm was predicted, hoping to catch the first flakes fluttering when it was too dark to see the street. My classmates and I would snuggle in our beds the next morning, listening to our clock radios to see if our district would be on the list of closings read by the announcer. Parents also had not-so-reliable phone trees to spread the word decades before robocalls. But even with communication becoming less personal, I've observed the magical reactions of kids who realize they're getting a snow day; I actually heard cheering outside my window last February when our district made the announcement via email in advance of a storm the next day.

I think schools are over-relying on technology in general. I was disappointed this past summer when one of my kids was expected to do all of the summer assignments on a Chromebook, including the actual reading. I placed an order for the physical book anyway. Kids spend enough time stuck to their screens. If a day comes this winter when it's unsafe to go out, let them have their magical time to explore and dream — at least once.

• Andrew Taylor, 70, left the US to retire in Malaysia a decade ago.
• He now lives in a two-bedroom condo in Kuala Lumpur, the capital city, that costs about $620 a month.
• "I probably would not be retired if I were still in the US," Taylor said.

At 60, Andrew Taylor retired and left the US to move to Malaysia.

Taylor, who used to do administrative work, started thinking about retirement when he was in his mid-50s. But the high cost of living in the US made it feel like a pipe dream.

"I realized that I was probably not going to be able to stay in the United States, or I was going to have to work until I was 80," Taylor, now 70, told Business Insider.

He started considering retiring abroad, and it was through his then-partner — who lived in Penang, a state in the northwestern part of Malaysia — that he first learned about the Malaysia My Second Home, or MM2H, visa program. The MM2H program was introduced by the government in 2002 to attract foreigners to retire and live in Malaysia.

The conditions for the visa have been tightened over the years.

Based on the most recent rule changes announced in 2024, there are now three different categories: platinum, gold, and silver. Depending on the category of visa they apply for, applicants are required to have minimum bank deposits of between $150,000 and $1 million and also buy property in Malaysia. The validity of the visa ranges from five years to 20 years. Because Taylor got a visa under an earlier version of the visa rules, he wasn't required to purchase property in Malaysia.

Having visited multiple times before, the idea of living in Malaysia appealed to him. He said he saw the visa program as something that could help him retire much earlier.

In late 2014, he applied and was approved a few months later. In 2015, Taylor packed up his bags and moved from Washington, DC — where he'd lived for 40 years — to start the next chapter of his life.

Creating a dream apartment in the city

It's been 10 years since Taylor arrived in Malaysia. He spent seven years in Penang before moving to Kuala Lumpur, the capital city, three years ago.

He's been in his current rental — a two-bedroom condo — for about five months.

Taylor said his previous unit was on two floors, and he had to climb 20 steps to reach the bedroom. "I'm 70, and the stairs are irritating to me now, so I want it to be all on one floor," he said.

He said it took just one weekend to find his apartment, which was about 2 miles outside the city center. The view of the city immediately caught his attention.

"I'm on the 22nd floor, and I can see the Twin Towers. I can see all the major towers in KL, and it's just a beautiful view. I think if I'm going to be in KL, that's what I wanted," Taylor said.

His rent costs 2,800 Malaysian ringgit, or about $620, each month. It's a two-year lease with an option for a third year. Unlike his previous apartments, he opted for an unfurnished unit this time.

"I really never liked the furniture in the apartments that I was renting," he said, adding that he'd always been interested in interior design. Most of his furniture is sourced locally.

"It's sort of eclectic," he said, describing his apartment. "I have oriental carpets and things like that, but with modern furniture."

His apartment block is part of a five-building condo development, which offers amenities such as a pool and a gym.

This is Taylor's fifth apartment in Malaysia, and he says he plans to continue renting and riding around the city on his Vespa for the foreseeable future.

Lessons learned along the way have contributed to his decision. The first place he moved into after arriving in Malaysia was on the 35th floor of a building in Penang.

"The landlord said, 'Oh, they'll never build in front of it.' Well, yes, they built right in front of it immediately," he said. "If you buy a place, it's just harder to move on."

Americans are retiring abroad

Taylor isn't alone in his decision to retire abroad.

An analysis published in March of last year found that a single person would need to earn $96,000 a year to live comfortably in many major US cities. It comes as no surprise that more and more Americans are being priced out of the US.

There's also a retirement crisis sweeping across the nation, with more people over 65 still punching the clock because they can't afford to retire.

An AARP survey of 8,368 people conducted in January 2024 found that 1 in 5 Americans 50 and over reported having no retirement savings. More than half of them also said they didn't think they'd have enough money to keep themselves afloat in retirement.

It's a sentiment that Taylor shares. "I probably would not be retired if I were still in the US," he said.

In contrast, the MM2H visa has made Malaysia an attractive destination for expats.

As of January 2024, there were 56,066 active MM2H pass holders in the country, Malaysia's minister of tourism, arts, and culture, Tiong King Sing, said during a parliament session, according to the local paper The Star. Chinese nationals formed about 44% of pass holders, followed by those from South Korea and Japan. There were 1,340 pass holders from the US. The ministry didn't respond to a request for comment sent by BI.

'Pretty similar' lifestyles in both countries

While Taylor's lifestyle in Malaysia is "pretty similar" to the one he had back in the States, he said, the lower cost of living means his money can go further each month.

"I would say I used to try to keep my budget to $2,000. Now it's a little bit more than that. I would say $2,500 is what I live on now," Taylor said, adding that he didn't think he could live on the same amount back in the US.

He has a basic health-insurance policy that costs 340 Malaysian ringgit each month.

"There are other much better policies, but I went with the cheap option," Taylor said. He says it covered only hospitalization and related costs.

He also said he was satisfied with Malaysia's healthcare facilities.

"You don't have to wait long for an appointment or wait long at your appointment," he added.

Cost of living aside, Taylor says he also felt safer in Malaysia.

"I've never felt safer anywhere. Where I lived in my last place outside D.C., sometimes I would hear gunshots from outside my window, and that just is so foreign here. There's nothing like that," he said. "I've never ever felt any uncomfortable feeling when I'm out, even alone walking around."

These days, Taylor spends his time filming YouTube videos about what it's like to live in Malaysia.

He said, however, that such a drastic move might not be for everyone — especially for those who have children, grandchildren, or even older parents. It only worked for him because he had loose family connections.

Looking back, Taylor said he'd learned not to be afraid of living outside his comfort zone.

"My family thought I would last about six months, and then I would come back," he said. "Ten years later, and I'm still here, and I have no intention of ever going back to the US."

Have you recently relocated to a new country and found your dream home? If you have a story to share, contact this reporter at [email protected].

• Shruti Dhumak navigated maternity leave amid Google's AI industry shift and layoffs.
• She split her leave to maintain visibility and manage family support from India.
• Dhumak focused on self-improvement and open communication to regain her work efficiency.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Shruti Dhumak, a cloud customer engineer in Google's Boston office who gave birth in February 2023. It has been edited for length and clarity. Business Insider has verified her employment history.

Before I had my son, I always doubted how I was going to manage being this overly ambitious person with motherhood.

I've been with Google for about four years. I had my first child in February 2022 and split up my maternity leave in three phases to make the most of temporary support I had when my family visited.

Between Google's policy of six months of maternity leave, one month of prepartum leave, and one month of paid time off, I had a total of eight months of time away from work. I knew I was fortunate to have this time off because it is rare in the US, but going on leave and the anxiety of being replaced while I was away was one of the hardest things I have dealt with.

I'm a customer engineer, and a large part of my role revolves around managing relationships with our cloud clients. If someone takes over for me, the customers end up being closer to that representative and I risk losing my accounts to someone else.

I was also paranoid that my absence or my performance below my peak, once I returned, would make me more susceptible to a layoff. Two weeks before my delivery, Google announced its biggest, 12,000-people layoff. As someone on an H1-B visa, a layoff would mean I would have to find another job in a matter of weeks or risk having to move back to India with a newborn.

When I came back to work, I was not a hundred percent myself — not as a person and not as an employee. I was not a hundred percent efficient. I've had my moments where I broke down and lost my train of thought during a call.

Despite my efforts, some other senior people were preferred by the business partners for some responsibilities. To add to it, Google was entering the artificial intelligence industry. Being away months felt like I was behind by many years.

But I was able to turn my performance around. In 2024, I got awards for my performance, and it's just the opposite of how last year went.

There were four things I did to make the transition easier on myself:

1. Split up my leave

Google offers employees the flexibility to take their maternity leave for up to a year after the baby is born. I broke up my leave into three stages, which allowed me to come back to work periodically to ensure I was visible and my work was not forgotten.

I took my first break a month before the baby was born. I returned in my third month after the delivery and went back on leave in the months of September, November, December and January. It was designed based on who was there to help me with the child throughout the year — first my parents and then my in-laws.

2. Highlight my work

Nobody is going to talk about me until I do, which is something I have struggled with in my previous companies.

I made sure to speak up when things weren't going right and made sure to collect evidence of my efforts and achievements.

I took advantage of the help I had and spent evenings and weekends taking exams and completing certifications to upskill myself and show others that I was coming up to speed.

3. Have open, honest conversations

What helped me through the year was my manager. She saw what was happening when I missed things because I've been a good performer all these years.

I shared everything with her openly during one-on-ones, which helped because she understood my challenges. She also helped me maintain visibility with upper management, because Google is strict with grades and the ratings you get.

It made a world of a difference to have a female manager and a work culture where men could empathize, too. My job involves a lot of talking and explaining, and I suffered from shortness of breath during my third trimester. My male counterparts recognized this and asked me to take breaks and go off-camera, which helped me work until the day I left for leave.

I also built my network and spoke to women who are managers in other teams in the company. Women who have been outperformers shared their experiences crying secretly after they became parents, and nobody said they had it all sorted out. Now, I share my journey with others.

4. Taking it one day at a time

During the wave of tech layoffs in 2022, I had at least three close friends who were laid off from Google, Microsoft, and Meta, which lingered on my mind and made me paranoid about my own situation.

The stress and postpartum depression is not behind me, but I decided to take it one day at a time.

I decided to be laser-focused and do things as they come up. There have been times I feel like delaying a reply but do it anyway, because I know it could lead to more tasks that I can add to my annual review.

Do you work in Big Tech and have a tip or story to share? Please reach out at [email protected].

• Wendy Altschuler has traveled around the world with her husband and three sons.
• Her kids agree that Japan has been their favorite destination.
• Sumo wrestling was the highlight of their trip.

My kids have been fortunate to enjoy the benefits of my main work perk as a longtime travel writer: accumulating airline miles.

Of all of the places we've traveled around the world — including Peru, Greece, Dominican Republic, Thailand, India, Singapore, UAE, and Aruba — Japan remains the absolute favorite for all three of my boys.

During our summertime trip to Japan, we explored incense-heavy shrines, wandered through gardens bursting with hydrangeas, marveled at castles, indulged in street food, met wild monkeys, and sauntered through a bamboo forest. The kids made it clear that Japan lights up all five of your senses — no matter what age you are.

We all enjoyed finding a beach full of smooth pottery pieces, remnants from a long-ago shipwreck; and watching a crazy robot show in Tokyo with swirling lights and loud music while eating dinner.

But the highlight of their trip was learning about sumo wrestling.

The whole family tried sumo wrestling

In Nara, near Kyoto and Osaka, we encountered sacred deer that bowed when we fed them crackers. It was near there, at the foot of Mt. Nijo in Katsuragi City, where I had another quest for my boys — to learn about Japan's oldest sport: Sumo wrestling.

Katsuragi is the origin of sumo, Japan's national sport with 1,500 years of history. At Kehayaza Sumo Museum, we took our shoes off and sat in a box seat on top of cushions to watch.

We were the sole spectators at the event that aims to educate visitors on the art of sumo. Rather than attend a Grand Sumo Tournament, which can be difficult to visit with only six tournaments held each year, the museum is much more open, affordable, and accessible for families on a year-round basis.

There was beautiful singing, a display of flags, and rice throwing to purify the elevated ring, which was made of clay and covered in rough sand. Two massive rikishi, or sumo wrestlers, entered the circular ring, the dohyo, wearing only a mawashi, or loin cloth. We observed as the two athletes lifted and stomped each leg, slapped their stomachs, and prepared for the match.

They learned about Japanese culture

Sumo originated as a ritual dance to entertain the gods at shrine festivals. Nowadays, professional sumo has six divisions. Wrestlers move up the ranks depending on their skill, and their pay increases as they progress and evolve. The Grand Champion, or Yokozuna, is an exclusive title that can earn the wrestler 2.8 million yen, or $18,000 per month, per the South China Morning Post.

Tickets for standard seats to the tournaments start at around 2,500 yen and go up to around 20,000 yen for ringside seats. Box seats, which accommodate four people, can cost up to 60,000 yen per box.

A benefit of visiting the museum is that entrance is free for visitors with foreign passports.

We all stepped into the ring

With eyes wide, my boys were dialed in as the straight-faced men collided while endeavoring to push each other to the ground or out of the ring to win the match. We were told that in sumo, often, the opponents aren't the same size or weight, like in American boxing, which allows spectators to root for an underdog.

After the match, my husband was asked if he wanted to try. He cautiously stepped into the ring with the largest of the two wrestlers and went through the entire ritual — tossing the rice in the air, bowing, clapping, crouching down with his fists on the ground, mirroring the correct footwork, and facing his opponent. I went next. Then each of my boys got a chance to test their mettle.

While a referee — dressed in a long red and gold robe, black pointed hat, white belt, and holding a small paper fan — officiated, my boys followed the ceremonial tasks and squared off with their skilled challenger. I'll never forget how the athlete, who seemed so imposing when he was brawling with his opponent, morphed into a playful fellow when my kids each entered the ring.

When the near-naked wrestler picked up my firstborn son, who was 12 at the time, and swung him around by his mawashi, I roared with laughter. I still smile when I think about how high-pitched the wrestler's giggle was, completely contrasting his size and power.

My youngest pressed firmly into his challenger's belly, not moving him an inch, and then, par for the course, he became airborne, just like his older brother. My middle son took a different strategy: he stood on his tippy toes and went for the shoulders, attempting to drive his adversary off balance.

The final match was unfair: all three boys were against their dad. After the match, we thanked the sumo wrestlers for the immersive education.

Later, at home, I organized a postcard writing project in which short travel stories were mailed to isolated seniors. My youngest wrote about getting in the ring with a 400-pound sumo wrestler in Japan: "I was only 8, I obviously lost."