• When I was 23 I agreed to an arranged marriage with a man who was eight years older than me.
• Through the years, I've realized that our differences are what makes us a strong couple.
• We've learned how to live and grow together, lessons I hope our kids are learning, too.

At 23, while finishing my MBA, I agreed to an arranged marriage. My husband was eight years older, and we didn't know each other well when we said yes. There was no dramatic love story — just mutual respect, family introductions, and a quiet decision to give this partnership a chance.

In many ways, we approached life very differently. He's Gen X. I'm a millennial, the kind whose energy leans into Gen Z territory. I was full of ambition — constantly planning, striving, measuring progress in visible ways. My husband had ambition too, but his was quieter, more inward. He wasn't chasing milestones like I was; he valued stability and contentment. I'm expressive, quick to react, and constantly questioning things. He's quieter, more rooted in a time where people didn't always talk about their feelings or challenge every rule.

The generational gap isn't dramatic, but it shows at times. I see it in how we argue, how we manage stress, and how we make decisions. I was the kind of person who tracked everything including our kids' grades, the car we drove, the schools we applied to. I had a plan, and I wanted it to unfold just right. He was fine if it didn't. For a long time, I assumed we had to think alike to connect. But I've come to see that it's our contrast, not our similarity, that makes us stronger.

He helped me slow down

My husband brought a kind of composure to my life that I didn't know I needed. He never dismissed my drive, but he reminded me (always gently) that it was okay not to control every outcome.That kids didn't have to score at least 90% on every exam. That missing out on a particular milestone wasn't a crisis.

He didn't ask me to dim my ambition. He just helped me see that not everything in life had to be a race, something to win, control, or finish quickly. And that was a kind of freedom I didn't realize I was missing.

We love differently — and that's okay

I've always expressed emotions loudly, whether it's joy or frustration. My husband is more reserved. For years, I mistook his silence for detachment. I couldn't understand why he didn't or wouldn't match my intensity.

One day, during an argument, he held me by the shoulders, looked me in the eye, and said quietly, "Please understand. I'm not a woman. I don't process things the way you do. I never will." It wasn't an excuse. It was a truth.

That moment shifted something for me. His way of feeling wasn't smaller, just quieter. And once I stopped looking for a mirror, I started noticing the ways he did show love in steadiness and in small, consistent acts.

We've learned how to disagree without disconnecting

We've been married for 18 years and still argue — sometimes often. We parent differently. We see priorities through different lenses. There are days we get on each other's nerves, and days we can't stop laughing. But we've figured out how to disagree without tearing things apart. We give each other space. We pick our battles. We move on.

Love isn't always a steady flame. Sometimes it flickers. Sometimes it flares. But we've kept it lit — not through grand gestures, but through a quiet, daily commitment to keep showing up. He grounds me when I spiral. I push him to open up when he retreats.

When I'm overwhelmed, he brings calm. When he's tired or stretched thin, I step in often handling the emotional load, daily logistics, and sometimes even the smaller financial extras. I'm usually the one managing football lessons, birthday parties, and spontaneous pizza nights. He takes care of other the bigger responsibilities like managing household bills, school fees, and making sure things keep running smoothly at home and beyond.

Our children are watching

Nearly 18 years and three kids later, I hope our children see something valuable in what we've built. They've grown up witnessing our dynamic up close — two people with very different views learning how to live and grow together.

What I hope they carry with them is simple but lasting: that love and respect can exist even when opinions differ. And when they're with their own partners one day, I hope they know it's okay to think differently, to see the world through different lenses.

We see the world differently — and maybe that's exactly why we work. Like puzzle pieces that don't look alike but fit together, we fill in each other's gaps to make something whole.

I now believe that's what a lasting marriage is: not perfect harmony, but a shared rhythm. Sometimes clumsy, sometimes graceful, but always grounded in trust, mutual respect, and the quiet choice to stay in it, together.

• I toured Morgan Stanley's Innovation Lab at one of its New York offices.
• As I walked through the lab, which is filled with GPUs and other machines, I forgot I was in a bank.
• The focus on the lab and general innovation showed me how much the bank is courting tech talent.

Though Morgan Stanley's Innovation Lab sits firmly in Manhattan's Financial District, I hardly saw any of the finance bros who dot the streets outside during my recent tour.

I didn't know quite what to expect ahead of my visit — robots analyzing market moves? intricate gadgets? — and Megan Brewer, the head of firmwide market innovation and labs, tempered my wildest expectations when she described the space as "effectively a very large data center." The lab, she said, gives people "all the infrastructure that is needed to test ideas in a secure, scalable fashion."

Morgan Stanley employees who want to experiment with their own ideas or test third-party products that might help the firm can use the Innovation Lab. Brewer told me that most of the people who use the space are technologists, but that everyone at the bank has access.

"Most people don't think of banks as where people are sitting there soldering and working on custom design trips," she said. "But we offer that as well."

Morgan Stanley is sure to celebrate innovators

And it became clear to me that Brewer's team is pulling multiple levers to attract and retain the firm's technologists. She helps run the bank's Patent Accelerator Program, which guides innovators through the patent process. When someone's invention earns a patent, Brewer's team sends a message to their manager. They post on internal sites, frame the physical patent, and note the accomplishment on the person's company profile. Morgan Stanley has even put patent-holders' faces on their digital ads in Times Square, Brewer said.

Patents don't only grant legal control over an invention, but also acknowledge something as a creative, genuinely new idea. Inventions have to be "non-obvious" to get a patent, and they're a quantitative way for banks to flex their technological chops.

Banks are generally racing to embrace the newest technology. A McKinsey report from late 2024 found that banks have massively increased their tech spending in recent years, and are especially focused on hiring people to produce products in-house.

While tech companies are cutting back on new-hire offers, my time at Morgan Stanley made it clear that banks might be keen on snapping up some of the available talent. Citi also has a network of physical innovation labs across the world, and many banks have accelerator or innovation programs.

When we were ready to enter the lab, Brewer told me I might need to leave my notebook behind, since it's flammable. The first room, though, seemed pretty innocuous: a bunch of computers with black screens, and a lone guy sitting at a desktop. I almost felt like I was in a "Black Mirror" episode, the rows of blank monitors a dystopian end-of-world tableau.

The lab was full of high-end, deceptively plain machines

As we kept moving through the lab, the image of a stereotypical bank continued to fade. It was hot and loud inside the data center, with a white noise of whirring machines and fluorescent lighting. Brewer advised me to stand on a vent if I got too hot amid the rows of equipment.

Most of the time, I didn't know what I was looking at — at one point, it turned out to be the lab's first GPU. I asked how much it was all was worth, and everyone laughed, saying I didn't want to know.

"Many millions," Brewer said, adding that some pieces cost as much as rent on a New York City apartment. (I became very conscious of not stepping on the many blue wires grazing the floor in my kitten heels.)

Huge investment aside, though, some parts of the lab seemed almost scrappy, evidence of exploration and technology that's still in the works. There were labels made of blue tape and Sharpie, stickers that looked like they came from a name-tag machine, flame-retardant Post-Its.

At the end of the tour, I met an electrical engineer, who was standing in front of a clearly very complex, very impressive machine he'd made. My tour guide told me that he'd already built and patented multiple versions of the chip machine sitting before us, which he was too polite to mention himself.

He carefully explained his project — Morgan Stanley asked that don't get into specifics here — and indulged my many questions, talking to me in what were likely excruciatingly simple terms. When I asked whether he ever expected to work at a bank, I got an emphatic no and some knowing head-nods from those leading my tour.

Morgan Stanley has around 23,000 tech employees, 15,000 of whom are developers. At the time of this writing, the bank had 249 full-time technology jobs listed on its site.

The lines between banking and Big Tech

I didn't talk to, or maybe even see, a single banker the whole time I was there, which makes some sense given that Morgan Stanley's main New York headquarters are in Midtown and I was at a smaller office downtown. People talked in the terms of a startup, pushing themes like innovation that may appeal to an engineer more than the average investment banker.

We eventually left the lab and emerged into a similarly harshly lit hallway, the walls lined with cardboard boxes, before passing through a door and into the shinier, more central office area. I stepped into the bathroom before leaving; it was designed in the crisp image of the finance aesthetic, with a few cubbies holding hair straighteners.

Looking around, I remembered where I was: a bank at the tip of Manhattan, not a tech company in California. I wondered, though, how the lines between the two will continue to blur — and how much they've blurred already.

• NATO has pledged to majorly increase the alliance's air defenses
• It's an area the alliance needs after decades of not focusing on it, but seeing how Russia is fighting.
• But just spending money won't quickly solve the problem, as production and cultural issues remain.

NATO plans to invest money from soaring alliance defense spending into a fivefold increase in air defenses, but revitalizing capabilities ignored since the end of the Cold War is easier said than done.

NATO sorely needs air defenses. Secretary General Mark Rutte said Europe does "not have enough," outlining "clear gaps" in command and control, long-range weapons, and sensor systems, all while Russia's military growth is "really threatening."

The way Russia is fighting in Ukraine and the reconstitution of its military have led to greater urgency in NATO.

Defense experts say higher spending is warranted, especially on ground-based air defenses, but the alliance can't expect a quick fix from money alone.

The West needs air defenses and big missile stocks

Russia's invasion, specifically its relentless attacks on Ukrainian cities, shows air defenses are needed in a major conflict. For the West, worried about Russia and China, it's a wake-up call.

The West scaled back air defenses in recent decades as it battled weaker adversaries that posed no major air threat. However, Russia's bombardments, sometimes using hundreds of missiles and drones, show the West must be ready for the same. It's not yet.

"NATO faces a significant shortfall in ground-based air defense systems," both with the number of systems and ammunition supplies for them, Justin Bronk, an airpower expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said.

NATO is acting, but investments don't mean weaponry can actually be made quickly.

Bronk said fixing the issue "is much more a question of building production capacity at every stage in the supply chain as rapidly as possible as part of a crisis response rather than just spending more money."

"Currently, there just isn't enough production capacity in the world of Patriot interceptors, SAMP/T interceptors," he said, referring to surface-to-air missiles for eliminating air threats.

Struggling with production woes not easily fixed

Following the Cold War, the West's defense manufacturing and industrial prowess atrophied.

Companies consolidated, specialized production lines closed, workforces shrank, and inventories decreased — all crippling the ability to surge weapons.

Work is underway to boost production. For instance, Lockheed Martin expanded PAC-3 interceptor production for the Patriot system to 500 missiles in 2024, then a new production high, with plans to grow production further. Boeing upped seeker production, and Raytheon is boosting PAC-2 interceptor output, though it grapples with massive backlogs.

Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin plan to establish a European missile production hub, including the PAC-3 used by Patriots.

Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told German newspaper Hartpunkt that Europe has struggled getting missiles from the US because of production shortfalls there. He said the wait could sometimes be 10 years, describing that as far too long.

It won't start full missile production until 2027, and Papperger said he expects its engine producing capacity will be quickly used up.

For the Patriots, demand pretty consistently outpaces supply. And clearing backlogs isn't quick.

European defense company MBDA, which makes ASTER air defense missiles and other products, saw orders double since Russia's invasion. In April, Fortune reported that its backlog was projected to take up to seven years at current capacity.

The Financial Times reported the company's plans to double the number of hours worked and hire more, but CEO Éric Béranger also wants more action. He called this a "moment of truth" for Europe and said: "We need to be much more industrial."

Decreased production capacity has been "a tremendous problem in the United States," said Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "You can sign all the contracts you want, but the production capability is lacking."

It takes time to make top-of-the-line interceptors

Even if more companies boost production, manufacturing sophisticated weaponry simply is not quick.

Thomas Laliberty, Raytheon's president of land and air defense systems, told Politico last year that it takes 12 months to build a Patriot radar, just one part of an operational battery.

Sophistication is a key issue.

Bronk said missiles designed to attack are easier to build: "It's much, much cheaper to build offensive missiles than it is to build defensive interceptor coverage."

The price reflects that sophistication: Naval interceptors, like the SM-series, can cost up to almost $30 million a missile.

Defense systems are "some of the most sophisticated bits of hardware that militaries have, and producing them takes time with pretty skilled labor," former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan, a warfare strategist, explained.

Increasing production enough "will be a challenge," he said.

There are steps forward, but challenges remain

The alliance is taking steps in the right direction.

Retired Air Commodore Andrew Curtis, an airfare expert with a 35-year career in the Royal Air Force, said countries speaking confidently gives the industry the reassurance it wants to invest.

"Governments are now talking the right language," he said.

The industry saw investing in production facilities during the Cold War as "a sound business," as demand was there. But that changed.

He said the industry would not invest long-term in expensive facilities that require skilled workers "with no guaranteed orders at the end of it."

Increased cooperation is also needed.

NATO has cultural problems, with countries working separately. Jan Kallberg, a security expert at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said "the major challenge in NATO is not money, it's coordination."

Multiple companies working on similar systems means doubling up on some expenses, and makes scaling up harder, Kallberg said. Fixing that "would free up a tremendous lot of resources."

Military officials want greater collaboration. A US general last month urged defense firms to coordinate more and "stop selling us pieces of the puzzle."

Progress is happening: More companies and countries are working together. The Nordic countries are integrating their air defenses to act as one, and with joint air defense planning.

Changes are taking place at the top level. The European Commission is proposing new measures to cut red tape, encourage joint purchases, and facilitate billions of investments.

But challenges remain. Kallberg warned: "Culture takes far more time to change than just buying hardware."

• Legal ethics rules generally don't allow non-lawyers to own law firms.
• MSOs are a workaround to allow nonlawyers, including private equity firms, to effectively invest.
• Law firm owners can use the investors to scale, as well as for succession planning.

Real estate, airlines, fashion.

It might seem like private equity has climbed the mountain of the American economy, declaring everywhere the light touches as part of its kingdom.

But one corner remains in the shadowlands: Law firms.

Nearly every state has adopted a professional ethics rule from the American Bar Association forbidding lawyers from working for nonlawyer-owned firms.

Lawyers, of course, have figured out a way around it.

The loophole, known as a "managed services organization" — or MSO — allows non-lawyers to effectively own part of law firms through a second corporate entity.

Business Insider spoke to two attorneys who advise law firms on the arrangement, which they said is becoming increasingly common.

In June, Puerto Rico's high court allowed non-lawyer investment in law firms in order to spur economic development in the territory. Arizona, the only state that has done away with the ABA rule, in 2020, now has over 100 law firms that are open to outside investors, according to a recent Stanford Law School study. Large companies like KPMG and Rocket Lawyer now own law firms in the state outright.

The MSO model, which isn't limited to only Arizona, could appeal to law firm owners who want to retire or who don't want to hand their firms over to a law partner.

"We're in the midst of the largest rolling retirement of lawyers in history," said Lucian Pera, a legal ethics attorney at Adams & Reese who advises lawyers and businesses about setting up MSOs. "The baby boomers are getting old and retiring. And that's a real opportunity for some people."

Using an MSO can give private equity firms — or other kinds of companies — a chance to effectively buy a slice of legal practices. And it gives lawyers the chance to sell stakes of their companies for cold, hard cash.

It could also offer the chance to partner with a deep-pocketed company that could boost the firm and help scale it to new heights.

No one says MSOs are not OK

Traditionally, law firms have operated as partnerships among attorneys, where equity partners own shares in the firm and help manage it.

That's partly because of ethics rules designed to maintain attorney independence, such as ABA Model Rule 5.4(d), which largely prevents nonlawyers from owning law firms or from having the right to control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

The ABA's rules have made law practices distinct from many other white-collar professions, like finance or consulting, which may have robust ethical rules and norms but don't impose such stringent limits on ownership. There are plenty of publicly traded banks and consulting firms, but no publicly traded law firms.

As a workaround, the law firms can set themselves up as two corporate entities, Pera said. One is the law firm itself, composed exclusively of lawyers and owned only by lawyers. The second is the service organization, which can be owned by anyone and acts as a vendor for the law firm. It is essentially the back office, taking care of all non-lawyer tasks, including marketing, accounting, human resources, real estate leases, and employing paralegals. The two corporate entities enter into a long-term contract.

Under this MSO arrangement, non-lawyers can invest in the service corporation, though not the law firm itself. Presto! You have an ethically independent group of lawyers who are exclusively working with a company that can sell shares, Pera says.

According to Pera, no state bars have issued ethics opinions that expressly bless the MSO model, but no court or regulator has found a problem with it, either.

"The pieces fit well, and there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to do it, just like there's no regulatory approval required for a law firm to take out a bank loan," Pera said.

A spokesperson for the American Bar Association said its Center for Professional Responsibility doesn't have any ethics opinions on non-lawyers investing in MSOs.

"Lawyers are not subject to the ABA Model Rules," the spokesperson said. "Instead, they are regulated by the state supreme courts in which they are licensed."

Opportunities for both lawyers and investors

Tom Lenfestey is the founder and CEO of The Law Market Exchange, a sort of Craigslist for law firms.

He says private equity companies are typically interested in consumer-driven firms, like personal injury.

Investors might be able to introduce new efficiencies into those firms and get a steady stream of revenue in a larger portfolio, said Lenfestey, who also advises on law firm mergers and acquisitions.

Private equity companies might be warier of investing in Big Law firms, which typically service corporations and have fewer but bigger clients, he said. Lawyers could always jump ship and take clients with them, but consumer law firms tend to do steadier business, he said.

"Personal injury is brand-marketed — it's the billboards, it's the TV, it's the digital marketing," Lenfestey told Business Insider. "It's not attorney relationship-based."

Because law firms aren't required to disclose their use of service organizations, it's difficult to know how widespread the practice is.

Both Pera and Lenfestey declined to list the firms they've worked with using the structure, citing confidentiality obligations to their clients, but said it's becoming more common.

Pera said he knows of one firm that used the structure as far back as 2006. In more recent years, more law firms and investors have become interested in using MSOs, Pera and Lenfestey said.

"There are many more that are in process right now, and some of them are quite large," Pera said. "There's a fairly large insurance defense firm in this country that's looking at doing this. There's a fairly large AmLaw-ranked law firm that's looking at this. So there's a non-trivial number of these that are going on."

Lawyers who have built up their practices, and who want to cash out, can do so by effectively selling part of their firm to someone else to manage.

They can also help firms scale. Selling shares of an MSO could help finance lead generation or advertising.

Catalex Network, which launched earlier this year, is using the MSO model to invest in law firms with a longer time horizon. While a private equity firm might want to stick with a law firm for a few years before selling its stake, Catalex Network says it aims to form long-term partnerships with law firms by helping them establish MSOs, buying substantial stakes in them, combining their back-offices, and giving the firms the resources to compete with Big Law.

Catalex Network offers bread-and-butter services like IT, payroll, compliance management, and accounting. But also services that are more specific to the legal industry, like recruiting and sophisticated enterprise software that would be cost-prohibitive for smaller firms.

"I've seen kind of what big law resources are and I've seen what small law resources are," said Jeffrey Goldenhersh, a Catalex Network founding partner, who previously worked at the Big Law firm Skadden Arps before moving to a boutique firm.

For Catalex Network, the MSO structure offers a way for the company to grow with law firms. The American Bar Association's rules meant to preserve attorney independence, such as limits on fee-sharing with non-lawyers, are a non-issue.

And while Catalex Network handles the back office, the lawyers can do less managing and more lawyering, Goldenhersh says.

"There's a real consolidation going on at the top end of the legal market and some of these smaller, midsize, boutique-type firms are getting a little bit left behind," Jesse Hamilton, another Catalex founding partner, told BI. "So we're trying to help them catch up and be able to step into the ring with some of the larger firms that have consolidated, have the best technology, the best AI, the best back office staff, and have them be able to compete and stay relevant in the industry."

• Employers are overwhelmed with job applications and leaning more on a particular hiring tool.
• Cognitive and personality tests are becoming mainstream, hiring test providers told BI.
• Employers are the most interested in testing for soft skills, like emotional intelligence, the firms said.

Are you happy? Do you sleep well? Do you have many friends? Are you a workaholic?

Those are some of the questions Katelin Eagan, 27, said she had to answer recently when she was applying for a job.

She agreed to take a cognitive and personality assessment as part of the hiring process, but was a bit bewildered. Many of the questions had nothing to do with the engineering position, which, after completing the tests and going through several months of silence, she was eventually rejected for.

Eagan says she's been applying for jobs full-time since the start of the year. Her efforts haven't panned out yet, which she attributes partly to how competitive her field has become and employers having room to be picky.

"I think there's definitely a lower amount than I thought there would be," she said of available roles.

But that may be only part of the story. Employers are growing increasingly selective, partly because many are seeing a flood of seemingly perfect candidates, many of whom are suspected of using AI to finesse their applications, according to recruiters and hiring assessment providers who spoke to BI.

The solution many companies have come to?

Make everyone take a test — and see who candidates really are, irrespective of what ChatGPT suggested they put on their résumés.

According to surveys conducted by TestGorilla, one firm that administers talent assessments for employers, 76% of companies that had hired in the 12 months leading up to April said they were using skills tests to determine if a candidate was a right fit, up from 55% who said they were using role-specific skills tests in 2022.

Employers seem most interested in testing for soft skills — amorphous qualities like communicativeness and leadership — as well as administering general aptitude and personality tests, Wouter Durville, the CEO of TestGorilla, told Business Insider.

TestGorilla's Critical Thinking test was completed more than 100,000 times in the first quarter of this year, a 61% increase compared to the same quarter in 2024.

The firm also offers a Big 5 personality assessment, which was completed more than 127,000 times in the first quarter — a 69% increase compared to last year.

Demand among US employers in particular has been "massive," Durville said, adding that many firms have turned to tests as a result of being overwhelmed with job applications. The US is the largest market for the firm, which is based in the Netherlands.

"The biggest thing is people just want to hire the best people. It's very selfish and it's fine," Durville said.

Canditech, another firm that offers hiring assessments, says it's also seen rapid growth in the last year. In 2024, the assessment usage grew 135% compared to the prior year, CEO Guy Barel told BI. He estimates that assessment usage is on track to soar 242% year-over-year.

Barel says the surge is partly due to the job market tipping more in favor of employers. In many cases, companies he works with are flooded with "tons of candidates" and looking to "move forward as fast as possible," he said.

Criteria, another skills-based assessment provider, says test usage has more than doubled in recent years.

"AI is kind of creating this authenticity crisis in talent acquisition, because everyone can and is putting their résumé into ChatGPT." Criteria CEO Josh Millet told BI. "It's all about demonstrating your ability or your skill or your personality in an objective way that's a little bit harder to fake."

The AI job market

Jeff Hyman, a veteran recruiter and the CEO of Recruit Rockstars, estimates that demand for testing among his clients has increased by around 50% over the last 18 months.

That's due to a handful of different reasons, he said — but companies being inundated by job applications is near the top, thanks to candidates leaning more on AI to gain an edge and send out résumés en masse, he says.

Hyman says a typical job he tries to fill for a client has around 300 to 500 applicants, though he's spoken to companies trying to fill roles with more than 1,000 candidates within several days of being posted online.

The number of job applications in the US grew at more than four times the pace of job requisitions in the first half of 2024, according to a report from WorkDay.

Companies also want to test candidates' soft skills as remote work grows more common, Hyman adds — and they want to be sure they're getting the right person. Depending on the size of the organization, a bad hire can cost a company anywhere from $11,000 to $24,000, a survey conducted by CareerBuilder in 2016 found.

According to TestGorilla, 69% of employers who issued tests this year said they were interested in assessing soft skills, while 50% said they were interested in assessing a candidate's cognitive ability. A separate survey by Criteria ranked emotional intelligence as the most sought-after skill among employers, followed by analytical thinking.

"It's about their personality and to see if they are a good fit to the organization, if they share the same DNA," Durville said, though he noted that, in many cases, companies find the results of the tests to be shaky as a sole evaluation metric.

TestGorilla, Canditech, and Criteria told BI that employers say they're enjoying the time and cost savings of administering tests.

According to TestGorilla, 82% of employers who said they used skills-based hiring — a catch-all term for hiring based on proven skills — said they were satisfied with new hires, compared to 73% of US employers on average.

Canditech, meanwhile, claims its assessments can help employers cut down on hiring time by as much as 50%, and reduce "unnecessary interviews" by as much as 80%, according to its website.

But Hyman thinks there are some issues with hiring tests. For one, he says employers turn down candidates who don't score well "all the time," despite them being otherwise qualified for the job.

The trend also appears to be turning off job candidates. Hyman estimates around 10%-20% of applicants will outright refuse to take a test if employers introduce it as a first step in the hiring process, though that's a practice Canditech's Barel says is becoming increasingly common.

Hyman says he frequently has conversations with employers urging them not to put so much weight on test results, due to the potential for a mis-hire.

"That's lazy hiring, to be honest. I think that's not the right way to go about it," he said.

• Shaun Gill, a Paris Olympian, has been looking for an engineering job since graduating in May 2024.
• He said his immigration status and training for the Olympics have been obstacles in his job search.
• He continued to look for jobs while competing in Paris last year.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Shaun Gill, a 32-year-old Olympian in track and field and an engineering graduate from Texas A&M University-Kingsville. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

At the Paris Olympics last summer, I was the only athlete representing Belize. During the opening ceremony, I waved my country's flag with pride, energy, and joy. I didn't expect anything to come from it, but somehow, videos of the moment went viral and racked up over 10 million views.

But while that was one of the most visible moments of my life, what people didn't see was everything happening behind the scenes — like the Zoom job interview I squeezed in at the Houston airport before flying to France, or the late-night interview I did from the Olympic Village, working around the time difference with the US. I've applied to around 300 jobs over the past year, and I'm still looking.

I graduated in May 2024 with a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering from Texas A&M University-Kingsville. I thought job hunting would be fairly easy, but it's been far from it. I've spent the past year applying to jobs across the US and beyond — mostly engineering roles — but despite getting several interviews, I haven't gotten a single offer.

Immigration challenges could be affecting my job search

I've been competing internationally for years. I ran the 100-meter dash at both the Tokyo Olympics in 2021 and in Paris last year. I moved from Belize to Texas after being recruited by the coach at Texas A&M-Kingsville, who told me I was running some really good times. I was in my late 20s when I started college.

While I was in school, I didn't do any internships. During the semester, I was competing for my school, and in the summer, I was traveling constantly with the Belize national team — sometimes I wasn't in the same country for more than a week or two. It would've been very difficult for me to commit to a summer internship.

Focusing on training and competitions has, in some ways, been a financial sacrifice. I've never been paid to compete at the Olympics or World Championships — just travel stipends from my national federation.

After graduating, I had to return to Belize because I was on an F-1 student visa, which only allows a short grace period to stay in the US after your studies end. I moved in with my grandparents and started applying for jobs from there.

I'm now trying to get my green card again, which I lost as a child. My father is a US citizen, and I spent part of my early life in Texas — but my parents were going back and forth between the US and Belize, and we eventually settled in Belize. Because green card holders are expected to live primarily in the US, I ended up losing mine.

I've reflected a lot on why my job search has been so tough. It's possible I'm overqualified for some entry-level roles or asking for a salary that's too high. And with some applications, I'm not sure I've fully optimized my résumé for applicant tracking systems.

But I also think my immigration situation has likely played a role. Since I don't have a green card, I have to answer "yes" when applications ask if I'd need visa sponsorship — and I suspect that's turned off some employers.

My dream is to work in the US

At first, I focused strictly on industrial engineering roles. I was initially drawn to engineering in part because my university had a strong program, but more importantly, I see the field as a way to improve people's lives — like leading projects that bring internet access to underserved communities or joining an organization like Engineers Without Borders.

Over time, I started broadening my search to anything in the engineering field I thought I might be qualified for. I've applied mostly to jobs in the US — especially in Texas, where I have family — but I've also looked in Belize, Mexico, France, and other countries. While I was at the Olympics, I talked to someone who had been hired by a French engineering company and shared their info with me, so I applied there too, but nothing came of it.

My strong preference is to work in the US. It's where I see the most opportunity, the culture feels closer to home, and it's a relatively short flight from Belize. So far, I've had around seven interviews. I made it to the second round maybe two or three times, but never further.

To stay productive and boost my qualifications, I recently started an online master's program in electrical engineering through UCAM University in Spain. My only source of income right now is the $75 Belize dollars — around $37 USD — I get per session from helping to coach a youth track team, typically two to three times a week. I'm grateful to have my basic living expenses covered by my grandparents while I figure out my next steps.

I'm still training too. After the Olympics, I announced on Facebook that I was retiring from track and field, but a few months later, I changed my mind.

I have a few events lined up this year, including the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo this September. I don't plan to stop competing if I land a job, but I know it would affect my training schedule — I'd need to be flexible and might have to scale things back.

I still believe I can build a professional future in the US. My dream is to find a job in engineering, gain experience, and eventually move into senior leadership. For now, I'm doing what I can — sending out applications, keeping my skills sharp, and hoping that the right opportunity comes through.

• Sam Altman's endorsement boosted Cradlewise's site traffic in 24 hours.
• His recommendation of the Cradlewise crib also led to a peak in related Google searches.
• The crib, priced at $1,999, features a baby monitor and sound machine.

Sam Altman can officially add "baby influencer" to his resumé.

The OpenAI CEO announced the birth of his son in February, and shortly after shared his take on the parenting supplies he and his husband stocked up on before welcoming their baby.

Some of it was "silly baby things" that weren't necessary.

For one crib maker, however, the Altman shout-out paid off handsomely.

"Definitely i recommend a cradlewise crib," he said in an X post.

Within a day, Cradlewise's organic site traffic jumped by over 30% and it saw daily sales increase too, Radhika Patil, cofounder and CEO of Cradlewise, told Business Insider.

Searches for Cradlewise over the past 90 days peaked the day Altman made his post on April 13, according to Google Trends.

The company features Altman's post on its official website with the caption, "Sam Altman said it. We just bounced with it."

Altman's crib choice retails for $1,999, a few hundred dollars more than that of its larger competitor, the Snoo. The Cradlewise bounces babies gently to soothe them, with a built-in baby monitor and sound machine. It also grows with your child by converting from a bassinet into a crib.

"Sam Altman's mention of Cradlewise was a surreal and humbling moment for our team," Patil said.

"But more than the numbers, what stayed with me was seeing a tech visionary resonate with a product built with empathy, intention, and science," Patil said.

• Richard White is the CEO of Fathom, a company developing AI-powered note-taking tool.
• White founded Fathom in 2020 and the company raised a $17 million Series A in September.
• The AI CEO, a self-proclaimed extreme procrastinator, explains how the trait has been an asset.

This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Richard White, CEO of AI note-taking company Fathom. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

Everyone talks about procrastination as a personal failing. I disagree. I'm an extreme procrastinator, and I've been building successful companies, like UserVoice and, most recently, Fathom, for 15 years.

It's been one of my greatest assets as an entrepreneur. I see procrastination as ruthless prioritization in disguise.

Consider procrastination as data collection

Procrastination is a way to gather more information before making critical decisions. When I delay a choice, I'm not being lazy; I'm waiting for the optimal moment when I have enough data to make the right call.

In college, I judged the size of a project and left it to the last achievable minute. I might have frustrated my peers or not gotten the most out of every seminar, but I'd do exactly what was needed and nothing more. Since then, I've learned to be more thoughtful about my approach.

I used this philosophy to build Fathom, which now has an eight-figure valuation. We started building the company in 2020. Instead of rushing to market with whatever technology was available, we waited. We gathered data. We watched AI capabilities evolve.

For example, prior to the rollout of GPT-4 and Claude 2, Fathom would yield basic call summaries. When GPT-4 was made available, we saw its capabilities and knew concerted investment on our side would yield massive gains. It was a foundation for our more advanced call summary features, and any earlier investment wouldn't have been as useful to our company.

The same principle applies to my personal life. I plan trips at the last minute because I want to see what opportunities emerge, what's actually happening in my life, and what I might miss out on if I commit too early.

In other work environments or even relationships, being a procrastinator can annoy people. However, the real and most common downside of procrastinating is underestimating the effort required and starting something too late to meet the deadline. As a CEO, I get to define the deadlines or, in our case, create a deadline-free environment.

Urgent matters to trump important matters

I've adopted an unfashionable approach for a CEO: urgent trumps important. This keeps our entire company moving forward without anyone waiting on me to make progress.

It means that sometimes important but non-urgent things languish. I tell my team that if something's truly important, they should keep tagging me until I respond. This creates a culture where people at all levels in the company can advocate for what matters, and truly important tasks don't get lost.

I've developed what I call the "Jenga model" for running my company. Like the game, when a piece looks too difficult or risky to move, I leave it and come back to it later. I can think about a problem and then put it back down without fear. Months later, I'll pick it up again, and suddenly, the answer falls right out.

I'll prioritize problems that will get bigger with time, such as making an important product change, as well as problems where the solutions are low stakes or reversible. Higher-stakes decisions that are non-reversible should be deferred to gather data as long as possible, or broken out into lower-stakes decisions that help gather data to inform the larger issue.

For product development, we circulate ideas internally while waiting for technological improvements. We don't rush features to market. Instead, we wait for the AI to get better, watch for what could go wrong, and optimize our timing. I don't think I have ever missed out on an opportunity. The reality in startups is that few things have a "hard" deadline.

Implementing a deadline-free environment at Fathom means there hasn't been much negative feedback on this model. My team understands what we're prioritizing versus what we're doing later.

CEOs need to play to their strengths

Working alongside great entrepreneurs over the years has taught me that you can't build something around yourself that doesn't play to your strengths.

My strength isn't planning or rigid schedules. My strength is recognizing optimal timing, gathering information, and making high-impact decisions. I delegate open-ended goals to my teams rather than micromanaging tasks. I encourage people at every level to make decisions.

Most people think efficiency means doing things as quickly as possible. I think efficiency means doing things at the right time. You might be wrong about when something is needed or the time cost of execution, but that's the risk you take using your best collective judgment.

This mindset has served Fathom incredibly well. We're exploring ways to use AI to take better notes, reduce unnecessary meetings, and democratize information sharing within companies.

The next time someone tells you that procrastination is holding you back, ask yourself: Are you really procrastinating, or are you waiting for better information? Are you being lazy, or are you being strategically patient? Sometimes the best thing you can do is put the problem down and come back to it when you can solve it easily and effectively.

• For Love & Money is a column from Business Insider answering your relationship and money questions.
• This week, a reader faces romantic rejection once potential suitors find out she's low-income.
• Our columnist suggests she not feel obligated to share her financial situation and find like-minded people.
• Have a question for our columnist? Write to For Love & Money using this Google form.

Dear For Love & Money,

I'm a 61-year-old disabled female. I've received SSI for 25 years and have been alone for 7 years. Everyone recommends using dating apps to meet someone. When your income is this low, the only responses are from people who believe I should feel grateful for being a booty call. I give up! Even when I meet someone who shares my hobbies and we seem to hit it off, the minute they find out I'm poor, the conversation ends.

I have many hobbies and interests and am self-supporting. I've never been married and have no interest in it. I don't need or want to be taken care of; I am very independent and capable. I'm well-educated, kind, and a decent human being. I'm thinking my dogs will be my only company. Why do people complain about loneliness and then reject compatibility based on bank balances?

Sincerely,

Lonely, but Not Desperate

Dear Lonely,

I don't know why people complain about loneliness and then reject compatibility based on bank balances. It feels like a pretty shallow dealbreaker, but people's boundaries often reflect their baggage. Maybe they worry about dating someone who could become financially dependent on them. Perhaps they worry someone with a lower bank balance won't be able to keep up with their expensive preferences. Or maybe, they're just that shallow. Regardless of their reasons, your personal value is not tied to your net worth; nobody's is.

My favorite part of your letter is when you said, "I'm well-educated, kind, and a decent human being." So often, women and people with disabilities, in particular, are trained only to acknowledge what they're not bringing to the table. Seeing someone own their strengths, as you did, is empowering, and I hope you stand firm in your worth. You may not have a lot of money to bring into a relationship, but you have plenty else to offer. Anyone who has rejected you has missed out on something special — it's their loss.

You wrote that many people recommend using dating apps to meet people. I'll go ahead and swim against the stream on this one. You aren't looking for, as you said, a booty call; it sounds like you want a mutually enjoyable companionship in which both of you retain your independence. Dating apps are fast and easy, and offer endless options. All of these features tend to lend themselves better to short-term physical relationships rather than the more serious relationship dynamic that you want. Additionally, it's easier to reject someone for petty reasons, such as their bank balance, when they're just a face and a list of attributes on a screen. After all, there's always another profile to swipe on.

While you've faced some setbacks, even when meeting people who enjoy the same hobbies, I still think hobbies may be your best bet at dating for a few reasons. Firstly, your shared love of an activity means you already have a lot in common, one of which could be similar income levels. Secondly, meeting people organically means they haven't created a preconceived notion of who you are based on a carefully cultivated dating profile. If they learn you aren't as wealthy as they assumed you were, they aren't as likely to feel caught off guard and put off by the information.

I say "if they learn" rather than "when they learn" because disclosing your financial status isn't mandatory, at least not immediately. You're self-sufficient and don't want to get married, so why tell them? Your financial ability might still indirectly come up — they may want to frequent Michelin-star restaurants while you can only afford dinner at the local bar-and-grill, or they want to enjoy every concert coming through town, while you can only cover the cost of a single putt-putt pass — but you don't have to give them the details of your bank account to decline a date that's beyond your means. Instead, frame your reluctance to spend big as fiscal responsibility rather than fiscal inability. This may feel like lying, but it isn't. The difference between "I'm too poor to afford $200 concert tickets" and "That's not how I prefer to spend my money" is a matter of privacy; you don't owe anyone you just met a description of your savings account.

Down the line, you may find yourself combining finances with someone or in a serious, long-term relationship where disclosing your financial status is a natural development, an important disclosure, and a safe conversation to have with your partner. Until then, however, don't carry your economic status as a secret that you have to confess immediately in the spirit of transparency. While it may not feel like it, most people — especially those you'd actually want around you — probably won't worry about your income one way or another. But when you treat it like a potentially disqualifying consideration by blurting it out in the beginning, they might be more likely to see it as such.

Finally, I'd like to propose an alternate approach to companionship altogether: focus on building friendships rather than searching for romantic relationships for a while. Join groups geared toward people in similar walks of life. These groups could center on your hobbies, struggles, faith, or identity. Not only is community an excellent antidote for loneliness, but it will also broaden your network for finding romantic prospects. A good friend setting you up with someone they think you'll connect with is worth a dozen apps full of people conditioned for instant gratification. You're more than a dating profile or a bank account balance. The people you want in your life are the kind who will recognize that your worth defies dollar signs.

Rooting for you,

For Love & Money

Looking for advice on how your savings, debt, or another financial challenge is affecting your relationships? Write to For Love & Money using this Google form.

Brad Farmer, from Florida, told Newsweek: "When we saw the footage, it caught us completely off guard."

Major flash floods in Texas have already claimed the lives of 51 people, including 15 children.

• Noah Greenberg uses calendar mapping to boost productivity and manage his schedule.
• Greenberg's calendar was previously cluttered, leading to inefficiency and frustration.
• He also practices self-reflection on an annual silent retreat to enhance productivity.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Noah Greenberg, a 35-year-old co-founder and CEO of Stacker based in New York, about productivity hacks and how to build your perfect week. It's been edited for length and clarity.

I started my company, Stacker, with three other co-founders in 2017, and it's been almost eight years. In a nutshell, we're a platform for helping distribute brand content as earned media.

At the end of 2020, I was feeling out of sync, overwhelmed by my calendar, and overwhelmed by life and work generally. People put meetings on your calendar, life happens, and it's really easy to feel like it has to be that way, even if you're frustrated. But over the past few years, I've really benefited from thinking about what could be better.

I've had to ask myself, "What does an ideal workday look like, and how do I realistically put the pieces in place to make that happen?"

I realized that my calendar was just a bunch of stuff thrown on in no particular order, with no real intention. Once I started calendar mapping, I started living with intention and feeling more productive.

My schedule and calendar had several issues

As CEO, I do a lot of external meetings scheduled in advance. I realized my calendar was getting filled two weeks in advance, and when my team really needed to talk about something, they'd look at my calendar and they wouldn't feel comfortable asking if I could move things around.

Also, things got scheduled that didn't need to be a priority. I'd end up with a zebra calendar, which is half-hour meetings, half-hour breaks, and repeat. I learned that if I could stack those meetings back-to-back, then all of a sudden, I would have a full hour and a half free to actually get things done.

I got an executive assistant who didn't work out, but introduced me to calendar mapping

I only had an executive assistant for a few months because, in the end, I felt like I didn't need one. I thought it would be helpful, but I felt very uncomfortable not sending my own emails, even as simple as scheduling a calendar invite.

The biggest impact of hiring an executive assistant was that they taught me about calendar maps, which is having a separate calendar with set blocks of the day planned out. I schedule blocks for things like internal work, internal meetings, external work, and deep focus time. I also try to have a weekly in-person breakfast blocked off. When I'm scheduling things now, I try to put them in the blocks I saved for them.

I even use it in my personal life. On my calendar map, I have "cook for friends" once a month on Thursdays. It may not actually happen on that date, but it reminds me to schedule something.

The more people I've talked to, the more they say an executive assistant will sometimes do this for you.

A yearly three-day silent retreat also helps my productivity

I also did my own three-day silent retreat at the end of 2020, booking an Airbnb, driving to upstate New York, bringing a journal, shutting off my phone, and leaving my computer at home.

I decided to spend the time completely offline from work, assessing what was working and what was causing me anxiety about work. I do this every year now. It was so transformational for me.

Being away from your phone and computer for three days can really help open your mind to what could be different.

There have been podcasts and books I've read. But even with all of those inputs, the best source for finding what works for me is self-reflection. It's looking at my calendar and being really honest with what makes me happy and what makes me unhappy about how I spend my time.

I print out my calendar retroactively to see how well I actually use my time

I read something a few years ago that Jeff Bezos prints his calendar out and looks at everything that he did that month. He will cross out the things where he said that, if he could go back in time, he wouldn't have attended.

I do this a few times a year now. I think it's pretty intuitive. Reviewing, circling things that work, and crossing out things that don't, it takes five minutes. The real meat of the work is taking action on that.

At the end of last year, there was a meeting that was my least favorite of the week. It was a topic that I was really excited about, but I dreaded it every week. So, I sat down with that team, and we completely changed the makeup of that meeting.

I now calendar map my personal and professional life once or twice a year

I'd say overall, people have been very receptive to me taking control of my calendar, and essentially my life, this way. I think what helps is having conversations to help people understand why you're making the changes or blocking out the time.

Every year, if not every six months, I calendar map my work and personal lives together. My goal is to look back at the week on a Friday afternoon and say, "That's the life I want to live; that was a great week."

If you have a productivity hack that you would like to share, please email the reporter, Agnes Applegate, at [email protected].

• Conservatives have taken aim at advertisers who they say unfairly boycott media companies.
• Government investigations and civil lawsuits have remade the world of "brand safety."
• The probes have caused anxiety in the ad industry, but some execs say a reset was necessary.

Conservative media company The Daily Wire is celebrating the downfall of "brand safety," and benefiting from the new state of play in the ad business during the second Trump era.

Last week, The Daily Wire's commercial team received a request for proposal, or RFP, from Omnicom, one of the world's biggest ad agency groups. An RFP typically indicates an agency or advertiser's interest in buying ad space.

The RFP was a huge win for The Daily Wire. It was only the second time it had received an inbound ad request from Omnicom. The first was in May, but the latest was a much bigger buy.

Last year, The Daily Wire's famous cofounder and podcaster, Ben Shapiro, testified that the site had been unfairly shunned by major advertisers and ad agencies who, he said, had deemed its content unsafe for their brands.

"Brand safety was being defined by people with a severe bias against a certain point of view," The Daily Wire's editor in chief, Brent Scher, told Business Insider in an interview.

But since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, the power dynamics around "brand safety" — the practice of brands seeking to avoid their ads appearing next to, or otherwise supporting, "unsafe" content — have shifted, with some advertisers scrambling to avoid any whiff of anti-conservative bias. The situation is particularly acute for Omnicom, making its outreach to The Daily Wire both unprecedented and unsurprising.

Last month, Andrew Ferguson, chairman of the Republican-led Federal Trade Commission, gave conditional approval to a proposed $13.5 billion merger of Omnicom and fellow ad company IPG, which would create the world's largest ad agency. It had an unusual caveat: Omnicom agreed to a consent order that would prevent it from colluding with other companies to encourage its advertiser clients to boycott media based on publishers' "political or ideological viewpoints."

'Brand suitability' versus 'brand safety'

The FTC's move is the latest victory in the battle against brand safety waged by US conservatives. Brand safety in 2025 has become such a political flash point that some ad execs are changing the way they talk about the topic.

"I hear the phrase 'brand suitability' far more than 'brand safety' now," said Liam Brennan, a marketing consultant and former ad agency director. "It makes it sound like a cop out, but it's a shift in the approach brands are taking. Before it was 'block, block, block,' now it's more about where my brand should be appearing. It's a more positive approach."

While the Trump administration's actions have turned up the heat on brand safety practices, a broader backlash has been building for some time. Brand safety began as a seemingly innocuous practice of preventing brands from appearing next to the worst of the internet, such as violence, pornography, and illegal content. But it gradually expanded, with brands seeking to avoid a wide variety of political issues, or platforms that supported them.

In investigations and lawsuits, lawmakers and other high-profile conservatives have argued that ad practitioners, brand safety tech vendors, and industry groups forced the brand safety pendulum to swing too far into partisan areas, unfairly depriving right-leaning outlets of ad dollars. Media companies on the left have said they, too, have been harmed by advertisers who deemed news sites as unsafe for brands.

"What may have started as a good idea expanded, and then became too broad," said Mark Penn, CEO of the advertising holding company Stagwell. "Consequentially, it wasn't really about brand safety — it became almost brand censorship."

The emergence of brand safety

The practice of brand safety arose as advertisers shifted from analog media buying — placing deals directly with the TV stations, billboard owners, or newspaper proprietors they wished to buy space with — toward digital.

Using technology, advertisers could target their audiences across swaths of websites, social platforms, and apps with just a few clicks. However, this meant they had less visibility about the content their ads were likely to appear next to. Brand safety technology was created to give advertisers more control over the types of content they wanted to fund or avoid.

Keyword block lists were an early but somewhat blunt tool, helping advertisers avoid appearing in articles about grisly news topics like murders or natural disasters. However, marketers often didn't maintain good block list hygiene.

Mike Zaneis, CEO of ad industry accreditation organization the Trustworthy Accountability Group, said he was recently reviewing brand block lists that still had the term "Ariana Grande" on them, years after the deadly terrorist attack that took place at the pop star's Manchester Arena, UK, concert in 2017.

"Never mind that she's won two Grammys since then," Zaneis said.

Enter: The conservative backlash

The scrutiny on brand safety notably dialed up in 2024 and took on a partisan tone.

Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, released an investigation that accused advertisers of illegally colluding to withhold ad dollars from conservative-leaning media like The Daily Wire, X (after Elon Musk's takeover of the company), and "The Joe Rogan Experience." The report took aim at an initiative called the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which developed brand safety frameworks and common definitions that advertisers and Big Tech platforms like Meta and YouTube could universally adopt.

Elon Musk's X then sued several major brands, including Mars and CVS Health, alleging their participation in GARM involved a conspiracy to withhold ad dollars from the platform formerly known as Twitter. The conservative video platform Rumble also sued GARM and some of its members, making similar claims in its suit.

GARM shut down shortly after X's suit was filed. Its parent organization, the World Federation of Advertisers, denied wrongdoing but said GARM didn't have the resources to fight the legal action. In a May legal filing seeking to dismiss the X case, the defendants said the lawsuit was an attempt to use the courts win back business X had "lost in the free market when it disrupted its own business and alienated many of its customers."

In a statement, the WFA said GARM provided tools to help advertisers better exercise their freedom to choose where to place their ads in the best interests of their brands, and that it was always voluntary and pro-competitive.

"WFA will continue to fight these allegations, and we are confident that the US judicial system will find in our favor," the statement said.

While GARM is no more, the lawsuits and the Judiciary Committee's investigation continue, and the FTC has joined the brand safety battle under the Trump administration.

Ferguson, the FTC chair, has said that maintaining a free ad market and free speech is a top priority and that he hopes other ad companies will adopt policies similar to those in the Omnicom-IPG consent decree.

That notice extends to other advertising vendors in the brand safety sphere.

In May, the FTC sent sweeping civil investigative demands to media watchdogs and rating firms, including Media Matters and Ad Fontes Media, seeking information about their brand safety practices. In one such letter, viewed by BI, the FTC sought documents related to relationships with GARM, the publicly traded ad verification firms Integral Ad Science and DoubleVerify, and other entities that track and characterize "misinformation," "hate speech," "false" or "deceptive" content, and other similar categories.

While the FTC's actions have made many in the ad industry nervous, some execs consider much of brand safety to be, as Stagwell's Penn puts it, a "fabricated issue." Penn said there were only limited situations in which brands might really be negatively affected by where their ads appeared.

"From the polling I've done, conservatives think that they were being censored and demonetized, and liberals think they were being censored, so nobody was particularly happy about what was going on," Penn said. (Stagwell owns the public opinion and advisory firm The Harris Poll.)

Will the brand safety crackdown benefit news publishers?

Execs at The Daily Wire say the scrutiny on brand safety was warranted and has gotten results.

"My team is inside of the bigger agencies, having discussions, whereas the door was automatically shut 12 to 16 months ago," said The Daily Wire's SVP of ad revenue, Christine Hoffmann. "We're getting business from Fortune 500 companies, like Chevron, like Amazon, like Paramount, and that was business that was nonexistent to us."

Other conservative news outlets, including Fox News and The National Review, have also noticed a bump in advertising interest since Trump took office for the second time. Ad industry insiders previously told BI this reflected advertisers' realization that half of the country voted for Trump, but that it could also be a signal of advertisers hedging against political risk.

The notion that the crackdown on brand safety will provide a long-term bump to news publishers is untested and, for many industry insiders, feels unlikely. An executive from the media buying giant GroupM testified in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last year that just 1.28% of its clients' global ad budgets went toward news outlets. Meanwhile, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon — with their superior scale and adtech — are set to take in more than half of global ad spending outside China this year, according to the latest forecast from the World Advertising Research Center.

Omnicom has agreed to be audited to demonstrate its compliance with the FTC's proposed consent decree, which also includes an agreement not to create block lists, unless requested to do so by clients. The FTC's provisional agreement says Omnicom-IPG can't collude with other firms to steer client ad spend based on political ideologies, which might cause some advertisers to simply opt to avoid news altogether. As BI previously reported, some ad industry insiders and analysts think the government's crackdown on brand safety is an overreach that will hurt publishers of all kinds while further consolidating power with the tech giants.

New tools could help brands avoid the censorship label, but there's no room for GARM 2.0

Some in the ad industry tell BI they're hopeful that brand safety could enter an apolitical era, powered by tech rather than individual decisions over blunt filters.

"My view is that AI will bring greater nuance to brand safety — making it more effective for buyers and less restrictive for sellers," said David Kohl, cofounder of the performance marketing firm Symitri.

Kohl said startups like Mobian are building models that assess context, user sentiment, and real-time ad performance to identify which media environments deliver and which don't.

Elsewhere, Stagwell is creating what Penn describes as a politically neutral news marketplace, in partnership with the adtech company The Trade Desk, enabling advertisers to buy multiple news sites at once, according to demographics.

While brand safety might become more tech-enabled, it seems unlikely there will be a GARM 2.0 for some time yet.

"It would be far too easy to become a target," said Lisa Macpherson, a former marketing executive who now serves as the policy director of Public Knowledge, a tech policy consumer advocacy group.

Just ask the advertising agency group Dentsu. Late last year, Dentsu quickly exited its involvement with the creation of a new coalition that had intended to encourage ad investments in "credible" news. Days after the press release about the coalition was published, the House Judiciary Committee requested documents from the ad firm, having noticed similarities to GARM. In response, Dentsu said it had decided "not to pursue the initiative" nor "pursue any other effort with similar aims."

Macpherson said advertisers would continue to do what's necessary to protect their investments in their brands. Yet, as the threat of lawsuits and document demands related to GARM rumbles on, people in the ad industry will likely avoid using the phrase "brand safety" in emails or marketing materials.

"They may describe it differently," Macpherson said. "They will be very careful to couch it in language that evokes their constitutional right" to send ad dollars or not spend money on certain media outlets based on the suitability for their individual brands, she added.

Zaneis of TAG said the recent government and legal scrutiny of brand safety practices might have been the jolt the industry needed, forcing marketers to pay closer attention to an issue that had gotten out of hand.

"We may not like how we got here as an industry, but it's where we should have been all along," Zaneis said.

• Cerebium has raised an $8.5 million seed round led by Gradient Ventures.
• The startup helps engineers build and scale multimodal AI apps, from voice AI to digital avatars.
• It's already driving millions in ARR with clients like Tavus and Deepgram, its cofounder told BI.

AI infrastructure platform Cerebrium has raised an $8.5 million seed round led by Gradient Ventures, with participation from Y Combinator and Authentic Ventures.

Cerebrium, cofounded in Cape Town by CEO Michael Louis and CTO Jonathan Irwin and headquartered in New York, is a platform used by its customers' engineering teams to build and scale multimodal AI applications — which can process different types of data, including text, images, and audio.

Cerebrium works across three main categories, Louis said: Voice AI, real-time digital avatars, and healthcare.

Cerebrium provides the infrastructure building blocks behind the scenes — such as model inference and training, and data processing — allowing engineers to focus on their core product and workflows, Louis told BI. It also helps customers to deploy their applications in different regions.

"We believe specialized infrastructure, which scales elastically, will be essential as real-time AI becomes core to customer experiences," Gradient partner Eylul Kayin said in a statement.

Louis formerly founded the e-commerce startup OneCart, which was acquired by Walmart-owned Massmart in 2021. The idea for Cerebrium came as the team struggled to build machine learning at the on-demand grocery delivery company, Louis said.

Cerebrium offers serverless CPU and GPU infrastructure that spins up and down quickly, making it ideal for volatile workloads and cost-effective for clients, Louis said. "What that means is you only get charged for that exact time that it was basically running for," he said.

The company currently counts only four engineers and is generating millions in annual recurring revenue. It counts among its clients AI-generated video purveyor Tavus and voice AI companies Deepgram and Vapi.

The company will use funds to hire more engineers to meet enterprise demand and introduce new features, Louis said.

Here's a look at the pitch deck Cerebrium used to raise $8.5 million in seed funding. Some slides and details have been redacted in order to share the deck publicly.

Donald Trump's support among baby boomers has rebounded sharply, giving the president a boost with one of his most dependable voting blocs.

Sixty-four percent of Gen Z workers think they could be laid off in the next year.

Wimbledon's Round of 16 takes place on Sunday morning in the U.S., a morning of tennis that will feature stars such as Aryna Sabalenka and Jannik Sinner.

Musk announced he is starting a new political party called the "America Party" on Saturday.

"We were shocked and angry," father Justin Atkinson told Newsweek. "Everything quickly declined from there."

Hundred-million-dollar pay packages aren't just for the Shohei Ohtanis and Cristiano Ronaldos of the world anymore. In Silicon Valley, nine-figure pay days are reportedly now being floated to the world's top talent as the race to own AI enters a new frenzied stage.

Meta has made at least 10 high-pay offers of up to $300 million over four years to top OpenAI researchers for what it's calling its Superintelligence Lab, Wired reported this week. Sam Altman claimed in June that OpenAI workers had been offered $100 million signing bonuses to jump ship. Meta spokesman Andy Stone called news of the reported pay "untrue," saying "the size and structure of these compensation packages have been misrepresented all over the place."

Whatever the actual figures are, it seems a select few researchers could see bank account balances that rival or surpass CEOs at other Big Tech companies — and they would out-earn other tech workers by numbers that are hard to envision. (A BI analysis of Meta's federal filings last week found that software engineers at the company can make up to $480,000 in base salary.) A former Meta engineer who still works in the tech industry told us that as "top tech talent is finally being treated like top sports" many of tech's rank and file workers are filled with resentment and jealousy, "especially amongst folks that have been in the industry a while."

Demand for AI experts far outpaces the supply. Whatever enticing salaries Meta is actually offering must be outsized enough that they tempt people to abandon the sleek, hotbed of AI innovation to take on the task of bringing Meta, a company that bet everything on the metaverse, through yet another rebrand. To achieve Mark Zuckerberg's dream of building a personalized AI for everyone, Meta no doubt needs to open its wallet.

Zuckerberg seems to be testing now how many zeros he needs to put on a check to get people to come play for his team. But perhaps more than anything, the eye-popping salaries underscore how the divide between top AI talent and the rest of us is becoming not just a gap, but a chasm.

"It doesn't make sense for engineers, no matter how experienced and with great credentials, to make NBA players' salaries," says Natalia Luka, who studies economic sociology, organizations, and science and technology at University of California, Berkeley. The "exorbitant sums" that tech companies are paying, "not just for AI engineers, but also the computing power, the data centers, all of those costs," she says, is putting enormous "pressure on them to cut costs elsewhere."

"There's this existential dread going around that the field is fundamentally changing," says a former Meta engineer.

Just as top AI employees have humungous offer letters sent their way, thousands of tech employees are watching their job security crumble. Microsoft announced last week that it will lay off 9,000 workers (with the sales and Xbox divisions among those affected), bringing the total number of cuts at the company so far this year to about 15,000. These come as tech companies have spent nearly three years culling their ranks after overhiring and hoarding talent during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. More than 600,000 tech workers have lost their jobs since Layoffs.fyi started tracking cuts in the industry in 2022. Tech jobs overall, however, have continued to grow, and are expected to do so twice as fast as other sectors over the next decade, according to a new report from CompTIA, a trade association for the IT industry.

Still, the disparity has alarmed many. "There's this existential dread going around that the field is fundamentally changing, and the new entrants have had the rug pulled from under them as most companies are only hiring senior folks," the former Meta engineer told us. While that "makes sense in the short term," the person added, they fear it "is only going to make it impossible for them to grow the next generation of senior engineers."

Some Meta insiders are deeply cynical about the new "Superintelligence" organization led by 28-year-old Alexandr Wang and recent hires from OpenAI and DeepMind. Screenshots from a group of Meta employees on Blind shared with Business Insider show one employee calling the new group "marketing BS to feed the media." Some are concerned that Meta's current GenAI org will be sidelined or laid off, with one post asking, "Should I switch away from GenAI? I feel like we're all going to get fired."

Companies everywhere have increasingly made investments and pivots to AI over the past few years, and other workers have been cut to foot the bills. Meta bought nearly half of Scale AI last month for $14 billion. Big Tech companies from Google to Meta have boasted about the ways they're using AI to write code and become more efficient, all while the career ladder for entry-level software engineers topples. "You probably have to assume that just given the intense focus on all things AI right now, that it does diminish other potential areas of innovation, other potential investments, and by extension, it probably is going to diminish other workers in some capacity," says Tim Herbert, chief research officer at CompTIA.

The concurrent battle between Meta and OpenAI over the industry's most elite talent is far from the only one — companies are willing to pay more for AI talent at much lower levels, too. As of April 2024, entry level AI engineers made about 8.5% more than other engineers, according to Levels.fyi. Mid- and senior-level engineers earn about 11% more than similarly experienced engineers not working directly on AI. Demand for AI skills has grown by 21% annually since 2019, according to management consulting firm Bain & Company.

Not everyone is mad about the pay gap. A current engineer in Meta's GenAI org told us they believe most people at the company understand the rationale, and even support it. "I cannot produce that kind of impact and hence do not deserve that kind of compensation," they said. "I think most Meta employees are pretty much on board with this. If this team delivers disproportionately, we all benefit via stocks."

The rush for AI talent isn't so different from other eras of rapid tech innovation, where few have the skills to perform highly sought after work, says Sonny Tambe, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. "What's different now is that the pace is much faster and there could be outsized rewards for companies who win this market, so the stakes are unusually high," Tambe says. "AI companies don't have time to wait for the talent pool to expand, and so the effect is more pronounced."

Experts are skeptical that superstar athlete salaries will become the new norm for top AI talent; as more people are trained to lead generative AI teams, this may even become a passing fad. "The market is going to adjust in terms of having credentialed people who can do this kind of work," Luka says. "Right now, it really is a fairly select group that knows how to run these giant AI systems."

While we wait for more AI experts to emerge, there seems to be a two-tier system splitting inside Meta. Workers on Blind are describing Superintelligence recruits as "the chosen few." One employee sarcastically noted that those working in the GenAI org will "get to label data for minimum wage." Another noted, "Only a select few will get promoted… this is the era of elite internal poaching." Tech companies will still need to invest in other areas to move their goals forward. For now, it's a great time to be one of the few brightest brains on AI.

---

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

Pranav Dixit is the Meta Correspondent at Business Insider based in the San Francisco Bay Area.