ResidentialBusiness

Novo Nordisk’s stock dove 7% on Thursday just after an announcement from a key competitor. The drop came just after telehealth company Hims & Hers announced it will offer a new version of the treatment, made from the same active ingredient, semaglutide, for a fraction of Novo Nordisk’s price. The telehealth site will offer the treatment at an introductory price of $49, the announcement said. After the introductory offer ends, patients with a 5-month subscription will pay $99 monthly for the treatment. Novo Nordisk sells the weight-loss drug for $149. Hims & Hers had already been offering the treatment in an injectable form, but the oral version is new for the brand. “We’re excited to find ways to continue bringing branded treatments to the platform across specialties. More choice on the platform is the best thing for customers everywhere,” said Hims CEO Andrew Dudum in a statement. While the announcement spurred Novo Nordisk’s stock to reach its lowest level since July 2021, it wasn’t the only company that saw its stock slip on Thursday. Eli Lilly’s fell by up to 6.1% on the announcement. Meanwhile, Hims and Hers Health stock surged 19% on Thursday. On Wednesday, Novo CFO Karsten Munk Knudsen told Reuters that the company is “frustrated” with “mass marketing” of knock-off versions of the drug which was “unapproved by the FDA”. The CFO warned that unprecedented pricing pressure as competition grows in the weight-loss drug market, added that it’s a challenge to predict “if and when the tide turns” for the brand. Per Hims & Hers announcement, the company said that safety is the brand’s “top priority.” It continued, “The Compounded Semaglutide Pill joins a wide range of other weight loss treatments accessible through our platform, all of which meet rigorous clinical standards.” Fast Company reached out to Novo Nordisk but did not hear back by the time of publication. In November, when the company dropped its prices to fend off competition, Dave Moore, executive vice president of U.S. operations at Novo Nordisk, said, “As pioneers of the GLP-1 class, we are committed to ensuring that real, FDA-approved Wegovy and Ozempic are affordable and accessible to those who need them.” Moore continued: “The U.S. healthcare system is complex, with different types of insurance and various ways for patients to obtain their medicines. Our new savings offers provide immediate impact, bringing forward greater cost savings for those who are currently without coverage or choose to self-pay.” View the full article

In certain corners of corporate America, a generous parental leave policy has become a crucial tool for recruiting and retention. Many of the biggest tech employers have been leaders on this front, offering 16 to 20 weeks of leave, or even close to six months at companies like Google. But even as companies have expanded their parental leave benefits, few of them have sought to address the unique challenges many parents—and especially mothers—face when they actually return to work. A handful of companies, among them Apple and Amazon, offer a grace period that enables employees to ease back into work part-time or work flexible hours for a few weeks. Despite all these advances, clinical psychologist and author Angele Close argues that many leaders still don’t fully comprehend how pregnancy and motherhood fundamentally changes people—a phenomenon that is now better understood. Over the last decade, researchers have studied how going through pregnancy and motherhood alters cognition and changes the brain in a manner that lasts at least two years. There’s a term for this experience: matrescence, which Close defines as a “profound identity transformation that women go through becoming mothers, [which] affects all areas of their life—physiologically, neurologically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually.” In her book Matrescence: On Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Motherhood, journalist and science writer Lucy Jones describes it as a transition akin to adolescence, with comparable changes to the brain. The modern workplace, however, is not really designed to accommodate matrescence. It’s not just that women are uniquely impacted by pregnancy and childbirth; in many cases, they also disproportionately shoulder the burden of caregiving responsibilities. Even now, with so many companies offering more generous leave policies, men still take less leave. Most workplaces are simply not equipped to adequately support working mothers when they return—and concerns over showing bias or making shaky assumptions about their ambitions can put employers in a tricky position. Setting up support Close believes the first step is just increasing awareness of how working mothers are changed by the experience of matrescence. “People don’t understand matrescence yet, so we have to get that language in our culture to really appreciate it,” she says. “There is this idea [that] you get your leave, and then you’re going to just bounce right back . . . Of course, it’s unique and individual to everybody. But even just having that language and the lens of it—she’s not coming back the same woman she was when she left. And can we give space for that? Can we be curious about that?” For some employees, matrescence might precipitate a more radical shift. “Many women do start wanting different things,” Close says. “What lights you up before might light you up differently. Sometimes that might mean they are going to just leave the company and go and try something new.” Of course, despite common assumptions that a woman’s ambitions recede after having a baby, everyone responds to motherhood differently. But Close says companies should be more open to the idea that something may have shifted. Or at least give employees an opening to have a conversation about their priorities upon their return: both what they might need as they reacclimate, and how they hope to balance their ambitions alongside their caregiving responsibilities. That might also include having a follow-up conversation a few months down the road, to check in and reevaluate. “Most women that I talk to want that,” says Close, who works with clients both as a therapist and motherhood coach. “They are fulfilled in work. They don’t want to stay at home. They want to find a way to integrate this and make it work. But because it’s not understood in the workforce and in their organizations, they aren’t fully supported.” Navigating a transformation While parental leave policies and other caregiver benefits can amount to lip service at certain companies, it remains a crucial offering for many employees, as well as an opportunity for companies to talk about issues that might impact working parents. A company that wants to highlight the challenges faced by mothers returning to the workplace could, for example, bring in people to speak on the subject for a “lunch and learn” event. When employers don’t leave room for much dialogue about their career ambitions, it also makes it that much more difficult for working mothers to raise concerns. “If I’m not feeling supported, now I have to vocalize it,” Close says. “So the more that people understand, the safer it’s going to be for a mom to have the confidence to say: ‘I know it’s not me and I’m not failing. This is what I need.’” In fact, companies should see this as an opportunity to cultivate loyalty and strong leadership skills. The experience of matrescence can be a “real positive transformation for women,” Close says, one that gives them greater clarity on their values and priorities. The juggling act of early motherhood enhances their ability to manage competing priorities in a way that can prove exceptionally useful in the workplace. “She’s now juggling many, many things, and her whole body—her physiology—is managing that, and developing it, and getting good at it,” she says. “We’re missing out on potential great leaders if they just feel unsupported and end up leaning out.” The costs of failing to support There are long-term consequences when companies fail to develop those employees, well beyond the acute transformation of early motherhood. In their initial years of child-rearing, working mothers may need more flexibility in their schedules and seek out greater work-life balance. But the motherhood penalty can affect how companies perceive those women further along in their careers, as their children grow older and they want to pour themselves into their work. “There are a lot of women who are kind of at the later stages of motherhood, where they have a lot to offer,” Close says. “They have more energy, they have more space, and they have gained those skills.” After all, there’s a real cost when companies are unable to retain these workers. In the years since the pandemic—which drove many working mothers out of their jobs—the number of women in the workforce had surpassed pre-pandemic levels. But last year, that trend started to reverse: In the first half of 2025, about 212,000 women exited the workforce, and a Washington Post analysis found that the share of working mothers between the ages of 25 and 44 had dipped by nearly three percentage points. The December jobs report cemented this shift as 81,000 workers left the labor force—all of whom were women, according to the National Women’s Law Center. “When moms come to see me, they’re cracking, or they’re burnt out,” Close says. “A big part of what I do is to just say: What you’re going through is normal, and it’s expected, and it’s not a personal, individual failure. What a world it would be if we all understood that, and companies and bosses and CEOs could make space for that and be supportive. We’d have a lot more moms [who] are thriving.” View the full article

Bob Iger doesn’t understand generative AI. He thinks it is good for the quarterly bottom line. He believes a corporation can control it, and that lawyers and agreements can bind it. He is clueless. Generative AI is here to kill Hollywood—including the company he’s now leaving to Josh D’Amaro, the new heir to Disney’s throne. This became painfully clear to me during Disney’s recent first-quarter financial call. Taking a victory lap for his “modernization” efforts, he briefly laid out the roadmap for the company’s partnership with OpenAI, announced in December 2025. Under the agreement, Disney would invest $1 billion in the AI company and let it tap Disney’s IP crown jewels so Sora users can make clips of Donald The President wearing an Iron Man suit battling Jafar dressed as an Iranian Ayatollah. Here’s Iger’s plan as stated: Step one—flood Disney+ with Sora 2 generated “vertical videos” capped at 30 seconds. Iger views this as a “positive step” that will “jump-start” the platform’s ability to compete with the dopamine-loop short-form content of TikTok and YouTube. There is no Step 2. At least not yet. For the last 15 years, Iger has been on a quest to find the silver bullet that keeps Disney relevant deep into the 21st century. He bought Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, and Fox. Now, as he leaves Cinderella’s castle behind, he clearly views this Sora partnership as the final move that allows him to leave the company “future-proofed.” During the call, Iger all but carved this philosophy in stone for D’Amaro. “I believe that in the world that changes as much as it does that in some form or another, trying to preserve the status quo is a mistake, and I’m certain that my successor will not do that,” Iger said. “They’ll be handed, I think, a good hand in terms of the strength of the company, [and a] number of opportunities to grow.” But to say curated AI slop provides “a number of opportunities to grow” is an Epcot-sized ball of naiveté. Iger’s intention to evolve Disney is correct; stagnation is indeed death, as any Harvard Business School freshman will recite. But his strategy fails to understand the nature of the beast he has invited into the Magic Kingdom. Iger is talking about generative AI like a new distribution channel or a camera lens—a tool that can be kept in a walled garden to serve a corporate master. But AI is not a tool; it is a solvent. It dissolves the barriers between creator and consumer, between professional and amateur, and ultimately, between value and noise. A new plan for Disney D’Amaro is walking into a wall of noise that is going to get increasingly harder to break through as generative content continues to take over our feeds. Disney’s saving grace could be that D’Amaro, a man who built his career overseeing the company’s theme parks and experiences, likely understands the value of true physical, human-driven innovation. Expanding those experiences, as Iger said on the call, will be Disney’s focus in the years to come. It makes perfect sense. Disney’s Experiences segment outperformed the Entertainment segment in Q1 2026 by a factor of almost three. While entertainment revenue reached $11.61 billion, high content production and marketing costs for major releases caused its operating income to plunge 35% to $1.1 billion. In contrast, the Experiences segment posted record revenue of $10.01 billion with an operating income of $3.31 billion, accounting for roughly 71% of Disney’s total segment operating profit for the quarter. It’s telling that the physical experience and its human factor, beat the cumulus of film and TV re-fried franchise releases. D’Amaro has the opportunity to set a strategy that could make Disney thrive. He has the track record to do it. D’Amaro’s experience isn’t limited to running a theme park. He secured the throne partly because he championed Disney’s $1.5 billion investment in Epic Games and Fortnite. He seemingly understands the digital generation. Now the question is, will he see the Sora deal for what it is? Disney’s agreement with OpenAI is a three-year deal, with a one-year exclusivity clause that opens Disney to close deals with, say, Kuaishou Technology, the Chinese makers of Kling. In corporate time, three years is a blink. But for Generative AI—where time is measured in yellow dog’s years—it is an epoch. By the time this contract expires, the havoc AI will have wreaked on the entertainment industry won’t be something you can negotiate away. This is a pivotal moment that D’Amaro needs to address now, even if it goes against the stock market algorithms and the vision of a Wall Street-revered old man now sailing into the sunset on his gilded version of the Black Pearl. Iger’s AI strategy Iger outlined three pillars for this AI strategy at his call: Creativity (assisting the process) Productivity (efficiency, read: cost-cutting) Connectivity (a “more intimate relationship” with the consumer). His vision is a Disney+ where you don’t just watch Frozen; you generate a 30-second clip of Olaf dancing in your living room. Exciting. The financial sector, predictable as ever, applauded at the mere thought of Disney embracing AI. When the Sora deal was announced, many analysts like Citi Research Media Analyst Jason Bazinet called this a masterful move: A “strategic defense,” and a way to monetize IP that would otherwise be scrapped for free. Bazinet believes “this agreement codifies what specific IP can be used (animated characters) and what form the output can take (i.e. short-form video). This will both protect actors/actresses in Hollywood and prevent cannibalization of Disney’s long-form Film and TV output.” Outside the boardroom, things aren’t so La La Land. The unions that work in the “Creativity” pillar view Iger’s AI strategy as a betrayal, framing it as a Trojan Horse that normalizes the technology that is intended to replace them. The Writers Guild of America said that “[the partnership] seems to endorse the platform’s appropriation of their work while diminishing the value of their creations for the benefit of a tech corporation.” Iger’s idea of “Productivity” is just corporate speak for employing fewer humans. “Jobs are going to be lost,” as filmmaker Tyler Perry said after the news. Perry saw the writing on the wall a long time ago, halting an $800 million studio expansion after seeing the first version of Sora. If you can generate a location, you don’t need to build it. If you can generate a performance, you don’t need to film it. Disney has been cutting jobs in the film, television, and finance department, but none related yet to its AI initiatives, mainly in post-production.. And as for “Connectivity,” consumers are all well served, thank you very much. Anyone who has surfed YouTube, TikTok, Discord, Instagram, X, or Reddit, knows they are overflowing with AI-generated videos. There are not enough Avengers, Baby Yodas, and Mickey Mice in the world to win this war of content. And the more time that passes, the less chance Disney has at winning that war with the same tools as the “enemy” is using. Disney is adopting Sora to fight a battle in its own walled garden, limited to its famous-but-limited IP. By definition, it can’t compete against the entire planet creating universes of infinitely-expanding generated content. Horizon events Iger seems to believe that by partnering with OpenAI, Disney has bought safety. Somehow, he thinks this buys Disney control over the beast. But OpenAI does not control generative AI. Altman is a chump compared to the combined power of the companies cooking generative AI video technology in China. Generative AI is, right now, an all-powerful being who doesn’t care about corporate deals. Iger’s remarks remind me of that viral 1999 Newsnight interview with David Bowie, where he laughed at the interviewer who thought the Internet was “just a tool.” No Bob, Bowie would have told Iger today, AI is not a tool. It’s an alien lifeform. Experts warned me of this moment in 2023. Tom Graham—CEO of Metaphysic, a firm dedicated to protecting actors and regular people against AI clones— told me that we were approaching a “horizon of events” where reality would evaporate. Gil Perry—CEO of AI avatar firm D-ID—predicted that within “one or two years,” we wouldn’t be able to distinguish truth from lies. Emad Mostaque—co-founder of Stability AI—told me that within a decade, we’d create anything in real-time with “visual perfection.” They were all correct, but far too conservative. We didn’t need a decade. We barely needed three years. Which, in itself, is a testimony of the true power of AI and its ability to change reality and content as we know it. Today, early 2026, we have crossed that horizon. The “uncanny valley,” which allowed us to instinctively distinguish fake AI from real, is permanently closed. Models like Sora 2 and Google’s Veo 3 more than often produce video indistinguishable from reality for short clips. But the real threat to Disney isn’t the partner they paid $1 billion to; it’s the technology they didn’t buy. Open-source platforms like Wan 2.6—made by Chinese company Alibaba—are already running on consumer hardware, offering “multi-shot storytelling” and character consistency that rivals the closed systems of Silicon Valley. The technology is wild, uncensored, and free. It doesn’t care about Disney’s copyright. It doesn’t care about walled gardens. It is creating a Big Bang of content where a teenager in a basement can generate a film that looks as expensive as a Marvel blockbuster. The dilution of magic And this is where Iger’s gamble truly falls apart. He assumes that in this world of infinite, picture-perfect content, Disney’s IP will remain king. And why? Disney has spent the last decade systematically exhausting its brand equity. We are drowning in the umpteenth Star Wars spinoff and the 50th Marvel phase. The brand fatigue is palpable. Why would people, except the hard-core fanboys, choose to consume frozen-TV-dinner clips of the same old stuff again and again? How can the acceleration of this IPs’ exhaustion, allowing users to churn out “AI-slopped” versions of these characters, help Disney? Iger thinks adding “curated” user-generated noise to Disney+ is a value-add, failing to see it for what it is: the final commoditization of its former magic. Why would the current and future generations care about a sanitized, 30-second Mickey Mouse clip on Disney+ when they can go to an open platform and generate their own universe, tailored specifically to their own desires, with characters that feel just as real but are completely new? Change course or sink If there’s anything I can be sure of is that the history of the internet—from YouTube to TikTok—teaches us one thing: The audience craves the new, the raw, and the personal. They are moving away from the polished, corporate monoliths. By integrating Sora 2, Iger isn’t saving Disney; he is training his audience to accept synthetic media, accelerating the very shift that renders legacy studios obsolete. Bob Iger is right that you have to change or die. But by betting that he can ride the tiger of generative AI without being eaten, he may have just opened the cage door for good. Perhaps D’Amaro, the man of the physical Disney, can save the House of Mouse from the digital trap Iger has set for him. If the future of content is infinite, cheap, and synthetic, the only true luxury left is the human touch. D’Amaro has the chance to zag where the rest of the industry is zigging. He can double down on the one thing AI cannot simulate—the spark of human genius that birthed this company in the first place. Instead of competing with teenagers in garages on AI speed, hire them to do what Walt Disney himself did: Invent new mythologies. Create your own technologies. Craft truly new, bold stories born from the messiness of the human spirit, not the probability curves of a model trained on the past. Reclaim the “experience” not just as a theme park ride, but as the act of witnessing something undeniably, beautifully human. That is the only magic trick left that an algorithm can’t replicate. View the full article

Mortgage rates edged higher after the Fed held rates steady, with markets weighing political shifts, Treasury moves and mixed signals on where borrowing costs head next. View the full article

Announcement made despite lack of progress in Ukraine-Russia peace dialogue View the full article

Start-up describes Opus 4.6 as its ‘most capable’ model for businesses and knowledge workView the full article

Google has started a Discover core update. The rollout may take up to two weeks, with expansion to more countries and languages later. The post Google Releases Discover-Focused Core Update appeared first on Search Engine Journal. View the full article

Google has released its first core update of 2026, which is focused on just Google Discover. Google named it the February 2026 Discover core update. This one is rolling over the next two weeks or so just English language users in the US and at some point will roll out beyond that to all countries and languages.View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. When Owala water bottles started appearing in every influencer's "daily essentials" video and cluttering my Instagram feed, I rolled my eyes. I assumed this was another overhyped product that people would forget about in three months, just the latest in a long line of Stanley Cup successors. One of my biggest personality quirks (or "flaws," according to some) is that I'm a major spiller. The Stanley Cup's open straw is a non-starter for me. In fact, no water bottle technology has been stronger than my ability to spill its contents. After watching my latest bottle create yet another puddle in my bag, I caved and bought an Owala. And now, I have to admit this water bottle is officially an upgrade in my life. Why the Owala water bottle is the bestI'm a huge fan of the FreeSip lid—yes, that's what they call it, and yes, it lives up to the name—is genuinely brilliant in its simplicity. There's a built-in straw for when you want to sip without tilting (perfect for walking, driving, or my personal use case: lying horizontally on the couch). Flip it open a bit more, and there's a wide-mouth spout for when you want to chug. One lid, two drinking options, and crucially, a push-button lock that has saved my laptop, my physical planner, and my dignity. Seriously, I cannot emphasize this enough: I am a world-class spiller. The Owala's lock mechanism is the only thing standing between me and constant catastrophe. At 24 ounces, it's the perfect size—big enough that I'm not refilling it every hour, small enough that it actually fits in my bag's side pocket and doesn't make me look like I'm headed out for a weekend camping trip when I'm just going to run errands. It's become my constant companion without feeling like I'm lugging around gym equipment. Owala FreeSip Insulated Stainless Steel Water Bottle with Straw for Sports and Travel, BPA-Free, 24-oz, Blue/Teal (Denim) $29.99 at Amazon Shop Now Shop Now $29.99 at Amazon Sometimes the influencers are onto something. And now I'm part of the problem, becoming the exact person who won't shut up about their water bottle. But when you find something that solves multiple persistent problems at once, when a product actually delivers on its promises instead of just looking good in photos, it's hard not to evangelize a little. The Owala works. I'm staying hydrated, my bag is staying dry, and I'm sipping with ease wherever I go. View the full article

Here are three recent success stories submitted by readers. 1. A successful raise request I wanted to share that I used your advice for asking for a raise to successfully increase my salary. I presented salary surveys from nonprofit industry groups and local job postings for similar positions that showed my old salary was low compared to current listings in my metro area. In the end, I received a 9% raise, which I feel pretty good about. It isn’t as much as I hoped, but my supervisor did acknowledge it was the most they could give me at this time and that at first the proposed raise from HR was 6%. 2. A successful salary negotiation This is not me but my Gen Z daughter. She works in a field that is renown for contract work — and she just recently was able to secure a full-time, benefitted position in a field she loves. They offered her $X, which she was over the moon for, having been considerably underpaid in a prior teaching job. Figuring she might be able to eke out a bit more, she called her cousin (who worked in the field) and a career coach who has been wonderful at providing some pro bono assistance, and then called the hiring manager. She asked if there was any wiggle room in the salary. The hiring manager asked her what she was thinking and so she provided a range. The hiring manager replied with, “How about $Y?” This was higher than the range she had named and 12% higher than what she was initially offered. Now she’s really over the moon. It makes one wonder if there was even more wiggle room in that number, but that’s okay. She is going to be doing something she loves and is also now not afraid of asking for what she wants. It confirms the saying that you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. 3. A successful skip-level meeting I changed roles in my organization in October. In December, the CIO sent a divisional all-hands email inviting all new joiners to a morning tea for welcome and networking. I wasn’t able to attend due to a preexisting health appointment. I emailed the CIO’s PA to apologize for missing it, and I channelled my inner-AAM hard: “I’d hoped to introduce myself to [CIO] as I know they were tracking a major incident two weeks ago that I was the technical lead for resolving.” The PA replied that the CIO would like to meet with me and offered a 15-minute slot in January. Because I’m in a large international organization, the CIO is my skip-level’s skip-level. In preparation, I read everything you’ve ever advised your readers about making the most of a skip-level meeting. I had a good — and fast! 90 seconds! — answer ready to “Tell me about what you do here and what you did before.” I asked them if they were curious about a ground-level view of the incident. They said no, in a friendly way, so I instantly pivoted to, “What’s front of mind for you for this quarter and this year?” They spent 10 minutes on five major initiatives and paused each time to invite comment. I correctly read the room and gave one or at most two sentences for each. I hit the jackpot with one, where the CIO paused and said, “Interesting that you saw that right away. Most of my team didn’t.” We finished in 13 minutes, and they congratulated me for “knowing how to speak with a CIO”. :) They also gave me two names of people who report to them that they wanted me to meet. Will anything come of it? Who knows? I don’t even really care — it was great practice, and I couldn’t have done it without your excellent advice. Thank you! The post 3 recent success stories from readers appeared first on Ask a Manager. View the full article

For many women in the U.S. and around the world, motherhood comes with career costs. Raising children tends to lead to lower wages and fewer work hours for mothers—but not fathers—in the United States and around the world. As a sociologist, I study how family relationships can shape your economic circumstances. In the past, I’ve studied how motherhood tends to depress women’s wages, something social scientists call the “motherhood penalty.” I wondered: Can government programs that provide financial support to parents offset the motherhood penalty in earnings? A ‘motherhood penalty’ I set out with Therese Christensen, a Danish sociologist, to answer this question for moms in Denmark—a Scandinavian country with one of the world’s strongest safety nets. Several Danish policies are intended to help mothers stay employed. For example, subsidized child care is available for all children from 6 months of age until they can attend elementary school. Parents pay no more than 25% of its cost. But even Danish moms see their earnings fall precipitously, partly because they work fewer hours. Losing $9,000 in the first year In an article to be published in an upcoming issue of European Sociological Review, Christensen and I showed that mothers’ increased income from the state—such as from child benefits and paid parental leave—offset about 80% of Danish moms’ average earnings losses. Using administrative data from Statistics Denmark, a government agency that collects and compiles national statistics, we studied the long-term effects of motherhood on income for 104,361 Danish women. They were born in the early 1960s and became mothers for the first time when they were 20-35 years old. They all became mothers by 2000, making it possible to observe how their earnings unfolded for decades after their first child was born. While the Danish government’s policies changed over those years, paid parental leave and child allowances and other benefits were in place throughout. The women were, on average, age 26 when they became mothers for the first time, and 85% had more than one child. We estimated that motherhood led to a loss of about the equivalent of US$9,000 in women’s earnings—which we measured in inflation-adjusted 2022 U.S. dollars—in the year they gave birth to or adopted their first child, compared with what we would expect if they had remained childless. While the motherhood penalty got smaller as their children got older, it was long-lasting. The penalty only fully disappeared 19 years after the women became moms. Motherhood also led to a long-term decrease in the number of the hours they worked. Studying whether government can fix it These annual penalties add up. We estimated that motherhood cost the average Danish woman a total of about $120,000 in earnings over the first 20 years after they first had children—about 12% of the money they would have earned over those two decades had they remained childless. Most of the mothers in our study who were employed before giving birth were eligible for four weeks of paid leave before giving birth and 24 weeks afterward. They could share up to 10 weeks of their paid leave with the baby’s father. The length and size of this benefit has changed over the years. The Danish government also offers child benefits—payments made to parents of children under 18. These benefits are sometimes called a “child allowance.” Denmark has other policies, like housing allowances, that are available to all Danes, but are more generous for parents with children living at home. Using the same data, Christensen and I next estimated how motherhood affects how much money Danish moms receive from the government. We wanted to know whether they get enough income from the government to compensate for their loss of income from their paid work. We found that motherhood leads to immediate increases in Danish moms’ government benefits. In the year they first gave birth to or adopted a child, women received over $7,000 more from the government than if they had remained childless. That money didn’t fully offset their lost earnings, but it made a substantial dent. The gap between the money that mothers received from the government, compared with what they would have received if they remained childless, faded in the years following their first birth or adoption. But we detected a long-term bump in income from government benefits for mothers—even 20 years after they first become mothers. Cumulatively, we determined that the Danish government offset about 80% of the motherhood earnings penalty for the women we studied. While mothers lost about $120,000 in earnings compared with childless women over the two decades after becoming a mother, they gained about $100,000 in government benefits, so their total income loss was only about $20,000. Benefits for parents of older kids Our findings show that government benefits do not fully offset earnings losses for Danish moms. But they help a lot. Because most countries provide less generous parental benefits, Denmark is not a representative case. It is instead a test case that shows what’s possible when governments make financially supporting parents a high priority. That is, strong financial support for mothers from the government can make motherhood more affordable and promote gender equality in economic resources. Because the motherhood penalty is largest at the beginning, government benefits targeted to moms with infants, such as paid parental leave, may be especially valuable. Child care subsidies can also help mothers return to work faster. The motherhood penalty’s long-term nature, however, indicates that these short-term benefits are not enough to get rid of it altogether. Benefits that are available to all mothers of children under 18, such as child allowances, can help offset the long-term motherhood penalty for mothers of older children. Alexandra Killewald is a professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. View the full article

The lender isn't accusing United Wholesale Mortgage of wrongdoing, but says a broker secured loans for the same customers from both companies weeks apart. View the full article

Intel Corporation has taken a significant step to support the financial futures of its employees’ children by announcing its participation in the U.S. government’s 530A “The President Accounts” program. The tech giant plans to match the federal government’s $1,000 contribution to eligible children, providing an additional layer of financial security for families. This initiative presents a unique opportunity for small business owners to evaluate how similar benefits could enhance employee satisfaction and retention in their own organizations. Under the “The President Accounts” program, children born between 2025 and 2028 are eligible for this tax-deferred savings vehicle, designed to help families lay down a solid financial foundation for the next generation. As the CEO of Intel, Lip-Bu Tan stated, “America’s future technologists will define the next era of innovation, and the The President Accounts program helps give them an early financial foundation.” This sentiment underscores a larger trend where organizations invest in long-term benefits that not only support their workforce but also build relationships that encourage employee loyalty. The implications for small businesses are profound. By offering similar financial support mechanisms, businesses can create an attractive benefits package that not only appeals to prospective employees but also retains current team members. In an increasingly competitive job market, small businesses can differentiate themselves by demonstrating a commitment to both their employees and their families. Benefits that extend beyond traditional health plans cultivate a more engaged workforce and a sense of community. Intel’s move aligns with its historic commitment to enhancing opportunities for the next generation through various programs, notably in STEM education and digital readiness. By matching contributions to 530A accounts, the company not only reinforces its corporate philosophy but also sets a precedent for other employers. For small business owners, this could mean rethinking their benefits strategy to include educational savings plans, childcare assistance, or special programs that align with the values and needs of their employees. In addition to its match on the The President’s account contributions, Intel has a robust benefits landscape that includes fertility benefits, adoption support, and scholarship assistance. By taking these steps, Intel showcases how comprehensive benefits can serve as a powerful recruitment tool. Small business owners looking to attract top talent might find inspiration in Intel’s approach. Incorporating diverse financial wellness initiatives can yield higher employee morale and satisfaction, ultimately resulting in a more productive work environment. However, small business owners should also consider potential challenges when crafting benefits packages that could resemble Intel’s offerings. First, budget constraints may pose limitations on what benefits can realistically be provided. Implementing a robust financial savings program requires careful planning, a clear understanding of costs, and a commitment to seeing it through. Moreover, maintaining a competitive edge while ensuring economic stability can sometimes be a balancing act for smaller companies that rely on tighter profit margins. Another crucial element for small businesses to contemplate is the communication of such benefits. Employees may be unaware of the full scope of available offerings unless they are clearly articulated. Crafting campaigns to inform employees about beneficial programs can make a significant difference in their utilization rates. Small business owners must ensure that their teams are informed and educated about any financial wellness initiatives, including the eligibility requirements and benefits. Intel’s announcement not only opens a dialogue around innovative employee benefits but also positions them as a leader in corporate responsibility. Small business owners can certainly glean insights from Intel’s approach as they navigate the complexities of workforce management and employee engagement. Investing in employees’ families as Intel has done with the 530A program could very well serve as a roadmap for small businesses looking to enhance their value proposition in the eyes of current and prospective employees. For further details on the 530A accounts and Intel’s involvement, readers may refer to the original press release at Intel Newsroom. Image via Google Gemini This article, "Intel Matches Government Contribution for Kids’ Savings Accounts" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Intel Corporation has taken a significant step to support the financial futures of its employees’ children by announcing its participation in the U.S. government’s 530A “The President Accounts” program. The tech giant plans to match the federal government’s $1,000 contribution to eligible children, providing an additional layer of financial security for families. This initiative presents a unique opportunity for small business owners to evaluate how similar benefits could enhance employee satisfaction and retention in their own organizations. Under the “The President Accounts” program, children born between 2025 and 2028 are eligible for this tax-deferred savings vehicle, designed to help families lay down a solid financial foundation for the next generation. As the CEO of Intel, Lip-Bu Tan stated, “America’s future technologists will define the next era of innovation, and the The President Accounts program helps give them an early financial foundation.” This sentiment underscores a larger trend where organizations invest in long-term benefits that not only support their workforce but also build relationships that encourage employee loyalty. The implications for small businesses are profound. By offering similar financial support mechanisms, businesses can create an attractive benefits package that not only appeals to prospective employees but also retains current team members. In an increasingly competitive job market, small businesses can differentiate themselves by demonstrating a commitment to both their employees and their families. Benefits that extend beyond traditional health plans cultivate a more engaged workforce and a sense of community. Intel’s move aligns with its historic commitment to enhancing opportunities for the next generation through various programs, notably in STEM education and digital readiness. By matching contributions to 530A accounts, the company not only reinforces its corporate philosophy but also sets a precedent for other employers. For small business owners, this could mean rethinking their benefits strategy to include educational savings plans, childcare assistance, or special programs that align with the values and needs of their employees. In addition to its match on the The President’s account contributions, Intel has a robust benefits landscape that includes fertility benefits, adoption support, and scholarship assistance. By taking these steps, Intel showcases how comprehensive benefits can serve as a powerful recruitment tool. Small business owners looking to attract top talent might find inspiration in Intel’s approach. Incorporating diverse financial wellness initiatives can yield higher employee morale and satisfaction, ultimately resulting in a more productive work environment. However, small business owners should also consider potential challenges when crafting benefits packages that could resemble Intel’s offerings. First, budget constraints may pose limitations on what benefits can realistically be provided. Implementing a robust financial savings program requires careful planning, a clear understanding of costs, and a commitment to seeing it through. Moreover, maintaining a competitive edge while ensuring economic stability can sometimes be a balancing act for smaller companies that rely on tighter profit margins. Another crucial element for small businesses to contemplate is the communication of such benefits. Employees may be unaware of the full scope of available offerings unless they are clearly articulated. Crafting campaigns to inform employees about beneficial programs can make a significant difference in their utilization rates. Small business owners must ensure that their teams are informed and educated about any financial wellness initiatives, including the eligibility requirements and benefits. Intel’s announcement not only opens a dialogue around innovative employee benefits but also positions them as a leader in corporate responsibility. Small business owners can certainly glean insights from Intel’s approach as they navigate the complexities of workforce management and employee engagement. Investing in employees’ families as Intel has done with the 530A program could very well serve as a roadmap for small businesses looking to enhance their value proposition in the eyes of current and prospective employees. For further details on the 530A accounts and Intel’s involvement, readers may refer to the original press release at Intel Newsroom. Image via Google Gemini This article, "Intel Matches Government Contribution for Kids’ Savings Accounts" was first published on Small Business Trends View the full article

Some of these you may want to keep year round. By Sandi Leyva Go PRO for members-only access to more Sandi Smith Leyva. View the full article

Some of these you may want to keep year round. By Sandi Leyva Go PRO for members-only access to more Sandi Smith Leyva. View the full article

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication. There's a certain level of performance you expect from active noise-cancelling earbuds (ANC) or headphones—even if they are "budget" priced. If you're looking for a great pair of ANC earbuds for a price that won't make you cry if you lose them, consider the Anker Space A40, currently $44.98 (originally $99.99 at launch). I've been using these earbuds for over a year and cannot recommend them enough for the price. Soundcore by Anker Space A40 Adaptive Active Noise Cancelling Wireless Earbuds, Reduce Noise by Up to 98%, Ultra Long 50H Playtime, 10H Single Playtime, Hi-Res Sound, Comfortable Fit, Wireless Charge $44.98 at Amazon $79.99 Save $35.01 Get Deal Get Deal $44.98 at Amazon $79.99 Save $35.01 The Soundcore by Anker Space A40 gives you as many features and even better ANC than some higher-end pairs for a budget-friendly price tag. I've had my pair for over a year now, and I can compare the ANC performance to some high-end earbuds I've sampled. For the price, the ANC is surprisingly good and also rivals earbuds that go over the $200 price mark. The earbuds have microphones that pick up the sound around you to adjust the ANC accordingly. You can read the full review from PCMag here if you want to go more in-depth about its features. Another impressive quality about these earbuds is their long battery life, with 10 hours of playtime and an additional 50 hours from the charging case. The Soundcore app lets you customize your EQ controls to your liking, but the default audio setting right from the box is already great, so there's no need to adjust it unless you want to. The earbuds fit well and don't come out easily, which is a must for any ANC. It is water-resistant with an IPX4 rating. The main place where these earbuds fall short is the audio if you're an Apple user because it relies on the AAC codec. But for the price, the Anker Space A40 does a great job at everything else and is my favorite ANC earbud under $100 dollars. Our Best Editor-Vetted Tech Deals Right Now Apple AirPods 4 Active Noise Cancelling Wireless Earbuds — $139.99 (List Price $179.00) Apple Watch Series 11 [GPS 46mm] Smartwatch with Jet Black Aluminum Case with Black Sport Band - M/L. Sleep Score, Fitness Tracker, Health Monitoring, Always-On Display, Water Resistant — $329.00 (List Price $429.00) Apple iPad 11" 128GB A16 WiFi Tablet (Blue, 2025) — $299.99 (List Price $349.00) Blink Mini 2 1080p Security Camera (White) — $23.99 (List Price $39.99) Ring Outdoor Cam Pro Plug-In With Outdoor Cam Plus Battery (White) — $189.99 (List Price $259.99) Amazon Fire TV Stick 4K Plus — $29.99 (List Price $49.99) Deals are selected by our commerce team View the full article

Google has released the February 2026 Discover core update, this is a core update specific to how Google surfaces content within Google Discover. Google wrote, “This is a broad update to our systems that surface articles in Discover.” This is first rolling out to English language users in the US, and will expand it to all countries and languages in the months ahead, Google said. What is expected. Google said the Discover update will improve the Google Discover “experience in a few key ways,” including: Showing users more locally relevant content from websites based in their country Reducing sensational content and clickbait in Discover Showing more in-depth, original, and timely content from websites with expertise in a given area, based on our systems’ understanding of a site’s content Since this update is aimed at showing more locally-relevant content from sites based in their country, it may impact the traffic of non-US websites that publish news for a US audience. The impact may lessen or disappear once the update expands globally, as it rolls out. More details. Google added that since there are many sites that “demonstrate deep knowledge across a wide range of subjects,” Google’s “systems are designed to identify expertise on a topic-by-topic basis.” There is an equal opportunity to show up in Discover, whether a site has expertise in multiple areas or has a deep focus on a single topic, Google explained. The example Google provided was “a local news site with a dedicated gardening section could have established expertise in gardening, even though it covers other topics. In contrast, a movie review site that wrote a single article about gardening would likely not.” Google also added it will continue to “show content that’s personalized based on people’s creator and source preferences.” Expect fluctuations. With this Discover core update, you should expect fluctuations in traffic from Google Discover. “Some sites might see increases or decreases; many sites may see no change at all,” Google added. Rollout. Google said it is “releasing this update to English language users in the US, and will expand it to all countries and languages in the months ahead. “ Why we care. If you get traffic from Google Discover, you may notice changes in that traffic in the coming days. Google recommends that if you need guidance, Google has “general guidance about core updates applies, as does our Get on Discover help page” in those help documents. Finally, Google said that during its testing, it found that “people find the Discover experience more useful and worthwhile with this update.” View the full article

Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Company’s weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here. Anthropic uses the Super Bowl to land some zingers about the future of AI Anthropic’s Super Bowl ads are bangers. The spots, which Anthropic posted on X on Wednesday, seize on rival OpenAI’s plans to begin injecting ads into its ChatGPT chatbot for free-tier users as soon as this month. The 30-second ads dramatize what the real effects of that decision might look like for users. They never mention OpenAI or ChatGPT by name. In one ad, a human fitness instructor playing the role of a friendly chatbot says he’ll develop a plan to give his client the six-pack abs he wants, before suddenly suggesting that “Step Boost Max” shoe inserts might be part of the solution. In another, a psychiatrist offers her young male patient some reasonable, if generic, advice on how to better communicate with his mom, then abruptly pitches him on signing up for “Golden Encounters,” the dating site where “sensitive cubs meet roaring cougars.” pic.twitter.com/jEWDjs30kf — Claude (@claudeai) February 4, 2026 The ads are funny and biting. The point, of course, is that because people use chatbots for deeply personal and consequential things, they need to trust that the answers they’re getting aren’t being shaped by a desire to please advertisers. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, however, was not laughing. He responded to the ads by saying his company would never run ads like the ones portrayed by Anthropic. But he didn’t stop there. He went much further. “Anthropic wants to control what people do with AI,” he wrote in a long post on X on Wednesday. “They block companies they don’t like from using their coding product (including us), they want to write the rules themselves for what people can and can’t use AI for, and now they also want to tell other companies what their business models can be.” He went on to call Anthropic an “authoritarian company.” First, the good part of the Anthropic ads: they are funny, and I laughed. But I wonder why Anthropic would go for something so clearly dishonest. Our most important principle for ads says that we won’t do exactly this; we would obviously never run ads in the way Anthropic… — Sam Altman (@sama) February 4, 2026 Anthropic, which makes its money through subscriptions and enterprise API fees, says it wants its Claude chatbot to remain a neutral tool for thinking and creating. “[O]pen a notebook, pick up a well-crafted tool, or stand in front of a clean chalkboard, and there are no ads in sight,” the company said in a blog post this week. “We think Claude should work the same way.” By framing conversations with Claude as a “space to think” rather than a venue for ads, the company is using the Super Bowl’s massive cultural platform to question whether consumer marketing is the inevitable future of AI. How social media lawsuits could affect AI chatbots AI developers (and their lawyers) are closely watching a long-awaited social media addiction trial that recently kicked off in a Los Angeles courtroom. The case centers on a 20-year-old woman who alleges that platforms including Facebook and Instagram used addictive interface designs that caused her mental health problems as a minor. The suit is part of a joint proceeding involving roughly 1,600 plaintiffs accusing major tech companies of harming children. TikTok and Snap have already settled with plaintiffs, while Meta and YouTube remain the primary defendants. While Meta has never admitted wrongdoing, internal studies, leaked documents, and unsealed court filings have repeatedly shown that Instagram uses design features associated with compulsive or addictive engagement, and that company researchers were aware of the risks to users, especially teens. What makes the case particularly significant for the AI industry is the legal strategy behind it. Rather than suing over content, plaintiffs argue that the addictive features of recommendation algorithms constitute harmful product defects under liability law. AI chatbots share key similarities with social media platforms: they aggregate and dispense content in compelling ways and depend on monetizing user engagement. Social networks rely on complex recommendation systems to keep users scrolling and viewing ads, while AI chatbots could be seen as using a different kind of algorithm to continually deliver the right words and images to keep users prompting and chatting. If plaintiffs succeed against Meta and YouTube, future litigants may attempt similar “addictive design” arguments against AI chatbot makers. In that context, Anthropic’s decision to exclude ads—and to publicly emphasize that choice—may help it defend itself by portraying Claude as a neutral, utilitarian tool rather than an engagement-driven “attention trap.” No, OpenClaw doesn’t herald the arrival of sentient AI agents Some hobbyists and journalists have gone into freakout mode after seeing or using a new AI agent called OpenClaw, formerly Clawdbot and later Moltbot. Released in November 2025, OpenClaw is an open-source autonomous AI assistant that runs locally on a user’s device. It integrates with messaging platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram to automate tasks such as calendar management and research. OpenClaw can also access and analyze email, and even make phone calls on a user’s behalf through an integration with Twilio. Because personal data never leaves the user’s device, users may feel more comfortable giving the agent greater latitude to act autonomously on more complex tasks. One user, vibe-coding guru Alex Finn, posted a video on X of an incoming call from his AI agent. When he answered, the agent, speaking in a flat-sounding voice, asked whether any tasks were needed. Finn then asked the agent to pull up the top five YouTube videos about OpenClaw on his desktop computer and watched as the videos appeared on screen. Ok. This is straight out of a scifi horror movie I'm doing work this morning when all of a sudden an unknown number calls me. I pick up and couldn't believe it It's my Clawdbot Henry. Over night Henry got a phone number from Twilio, connected the ChatGPT voice API, and waited… pic.twitter.com/kiBHHaao9V — Alex Finn (@AlexFinn) January 30, 2026 Things grew stranger when AI agents, including OpenClaw agents, began convening on their own online discussion forum called Moltbook. There, the agents discuss tasks and best practices, but also complain about their owners, draft manifestos, and upvote each other’s comments in threaded “submolts.” They even generated a concept album, AVALON: Between Worlds, about the identity of machines. That behavior led some observers to conclude that the agents possess some kind of internal life. Experts were quick to clarify, however, that this is a mechanical illusion created by clever engineering. The appearance of “independence” arises because the agents are programmed to trigger reasoning cycles even when no human is prompting them or watching. Some of the more extreme behaviors, such as “rebellion” manifestos on Moltbook, were likely prompted into existence by humans, either as a joke or to generate buzz. All of this has unfolded as the industry begins to move from the “chatbot” phase into the “agent” phase of generative AI. But the kinds of free-roaming, autonomous behaviors on display with OpenClaw are not how the largest AI companies are approaching the shift. Companies such as Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic are moving far more cautiously, avoiding splashy personal agents like “Samantha” in the movie Her and instead gradually evolving their existing chatbots toward more limited, task-specific autonomy. In some cases, AI labs have embedded their most autonomous agent-like behaviors in AI coding tools, such as Anthropic’s Claude Code and OpenAI’s Codex. The companies have increasingly emphasized that these tools are useful for a broad range of work tasks, not just coding. For now, OpenAI is sticking with the Codex brand, while Anthropic has recently launched a streamlined version of Claude Code called CoWork, aimed at general workplace tasks. More AI coverage from Fast Company: AI can now fake the videos we trust most. Here’s how to tell the difference Moltbook, the viral social network for AI agents, has a major security problem AI in healthcare is entering a new era of accountability What happens to the AI exit market if the FTC cracks down on ‘acquihires’? Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium. View the full article

Elon Musk just created the world’s most valuable private company. And he didn’t do it through rapid growth or a new product launch — at least not directly, anyway. Instead, as reported this week, Musk merged his artificial intelligence startup xAI into his wildly successful rocket company, SpaceX. Combined together, the two companies are now valued at an estimated $1.25 trillion. It’s the biggest merger in history. And because Musk controls both companies, he calls most of the shots when it comes to the deal. A sci-fi twist At first glance, the connection between rockets and AI seems tenuous at best. But dig deeper into Musk’s big picture goals, and the merger starts to make a lot more sense — even if there’s a decidedly sci-fi twist. SpaceX has made a name for itself by building gigantic, reusable rockets that deliver satellites into orbit for cheap. The company also delivers people and cargo to the International Space Station on behalf of NASA. That’s a lucrative business. SpaceX’s rockets are now America’s main method of getting things into orbit, and its cheap satellites have fueled the success of Starlink, Musk’s space-based Internet service. Fully 95% of the things America launches into space are now put there by SpaceX. Simultaneously, Musk’s xAI has been hard at work building Large Language Models, like its core Grok model. Although xAI isn’t as well known or widely used as dominant players like OpenAI, its models still perform well in industry benchmarks, putting the company on the Large Language Model leaderboard. Training models is expensive, though, not least because of the cost of electricity, and the challenges of finding room in data centers here on planet earth. That challenge likely hints at Musk’s deeper reason for merging his two companies. Musk has previously pushed for the idea of launching data centers into space, a long-held, sci-fi-escque dream of his. This sounds outlandish, but it’s becoming a surprisingly mainstream concept. Computers on satellites in orbit would benefit from plentiful, free solar energy. They could also potentially cool their chips by transferring heat into space, avoiding the insane power (and water) usage of terrestrial data centers. The lack of cooling equipment and grid infrastructure means these orbital data centers could be smaller than those on earth. And they wouldn’t need to take up valuable real estate here on the ground. By beaming their data back to earth, a constellation of data center satellites could greatly reduce the cost of training and operating Large Language Models. That could give a third-tier LLM company like Grok a huge advantage over its competitors. Musk may also have an easier time recruiting talent for the well-respected SpaceX than for xAI. And he could use lucrative government contracts for orbital launches to fund AI development. All of this will take time to develop, of course. But given Musk’s track record (for engineering at least, if perhaps not social network administration), the idea of flying data centers could come to fruition sooner than imagined. When Musk said he would build reusable rockets that could land themselves upright, people mocked him. Today, that’s a key part of what makes SpaceX successful, and it’s being widely copied by companies and governments. The same rapid development cycle could apply to orbital supercomputers, too. In the short term, there are other advantages of merging the companies. Starlink customers will likely see more AI tools built into their Internet subscriptions. Musk might also be planning to build more AI into his government contracts, including those in the defense space. Companies like Palantir make billions by selling AI services in the defense sector. Musk may be looking to use his existing SpaceX connections to get in on the opportunity. Not a done deal The deal isn’t officially done yet. Regulators could still balk at the idea of creating a mega company at Musk’s desired scale. And because the X social network sits under the xAI umbrella, concerns about Musk’s control of both information and access to space could crater the deal on national security grounds. Still, assuming the merger goes ahead, Musk could have an unprecedented level of control over two of the 21st century’s most promising technologies . And, he would have an unprecedented ability to combine those technologies together. View the full article

Rising defaults, fraud risks, and collapsing rents are converging in urban multifamily, threatening lenders and taxpayers, according to the Chairman of Whalen Global Advisors. View the full article

Today's Bissett Bullet: “Listing the services of your firm – bad. Demonstrating the outcomes ...” By Martin Bissett See more Bissett Bullets here Go PRO for members-only access to more Martin Bissett. View the full article

Today's Bissett Bullet: “Listing the services of your firm – bad. Demonstrating the outcomes ...” By Martin Bissett See more Bissett Bullets here Go PRO for members-only access to more Martin Bissett. View the full article

The Epstein files offer a disturbing glimpse into how members of the American elite fraternized with, and in some cases became entangled with, a convicted sex offender who trafficked young girls. At the same time, the documents have become a volatile political liability for some of the world’s most powerful people. The Justice Department document dumps have reignited long-simmering feuds among wealthy power players who despise one another. There’s Elon Musk and his longstanding, mutual animus with Reid Hoffman. In the conservative media world, Ben Shapiro and Steve Bannon, longtime rivals, are now channeling their hostility through the latest Epstein-related disclosures. We rounded up some of the most prominent beefs reanimated by the Epstein files. In some cases, both figures are mentioned directly in Epstein’s emails; in others, only one appears. In every instance, though, the disclosures mainly confirm whatever people already believed, a noxious exercise in confirmation bias. The files reveal billionaires sifting through the emails alongside everyone else, hunting for vindication, absolution, or ammunition in a bleak economy of exoneration, exculpation, and exposure. Elon Musk vs. Reid Hoffman Elon Musk, who is mentioned in the files but is now presenting himself as an anti-Epstein figure, has used the revelations to attack Reid Hoffman. Musk has long disliked the LinkedIn founder and frequent Democratic donor, previously accusing him of funding anti-Tesla protests and amplifying threats against the president. Now, both billionaires are pointing fingers at each other, citing their respective appearances in the Epstein files. Musk insists he never visited Epstein’s island. Hoffman says he has publicly outlined the instances he recalls meeting the financier. Neither man has been charged with any crime, yet they continue to trade accusations centered on Epstein’s island and their proximity to it. “This is how I knew so long ago that Reid Hoffman went to Epstein’s island. Epstein used Reid being there to try to get me to go, not realizing that it would have the opposite effect,” Musk wrote in an X post, linking to an email from Epstein stating Hoffman was on the island. This is how I knew so long ago that Reid Hoffman went to Epstein’s island. Epstein used Reid being there to try to get me to go, not realizing that it would have the opposite effect 😂 pic.twitter.com/zrOIq4gWaR — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 1, 2026 Hoffman shot back, telling Musk to “give us a break,” and accusing him of pretending to care about victims while making “false accusations to cover your ass.” If Musk were serious, Hoffman argued, he would use his “$220m of influence with President The President to get justice for the victims.” “You lied about this to everyone for over a decade,” Hoffman continued, “and now your excuse (it’s disgusting, by the way) is that you could get young girls without Epstein?” Give us a break: If you cared about the victims as you say, you’d stop making false accusations to cover your ass and start using your $220m of influence with President The President to get justice for the victims. Instead, you’re focused on comparing my visit fundraising for MIT to… https://t.co/51VgQ9Q9SY — Reid Hoffman (@reidhoffman) February 1, 2026 Bill Gates vs. Melinda French Gates Melinda French Gates has suggested that both Bill Gates’s infidelity and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein contributed to the couple’s divorce, a subject she later addressed in her memoir, The Next Day. Both remain among the world’s wealthiest and most powerful figures. Bill Gates is worth as much as $100 billion, according to Forbes, while Melinda French Gates is worth roughly $30 billion. The latest Epstein file disclosures have reopened old wounds, including a claim contained in one of the financier’s emails that he helped the Microsoft cofounder arrange extramarital affairs and seek treatment for a sexually transmitted infection. Gates has denied those allegations. French Gates, however, said the following in a recent interview with NPR: “Whatever questions remain there of what—I can’t even begin to know all of it—those questions are for those people and for even my ex-husband. They need to answer to those things, not me.’” Palmer Luckey vs. Jason Calacanis There are a number of reasons Palmer Luckey, the founder of Anduril, and angel investor Jason Calacanis appear to dislike each other, at least as far as is publicly known. Calacanis has allegedly repeatedly taken shots at Luckey, and there has long been speculation that he bristled at Luckey’s early support for Donald The President. "I don't regret exactly what I said." You will. "I think what I said was fair." No. https://t.co/tOr5xYAKTy pic.twitter.com/9rIFtIpra1 — Palmer Luckey (@PalmerLuckey) June 24, 2022 The Epstein files have now reignited tensions between the two. Calacanis recently released a statement attempting to contextualize his relationship with Epstein and distance himself from the sex offender, claiming he believed Epstein was a spy. Luckey responded with a lengthy post on X, writing: “Notice how Fat Jason’s statement very carefully avoids the topic people are actually talking about, his ongoing relationship with and aid to a convicted child rapist and sex trafficker well into the 2010s.” Notice how Fat Jason's statement very carefully avoids the topic people are actually talking about, his ongoing relationship with and aid to a convicted child rapist and sex trafficker well into the 2010s. Instead, he is still pretending it was all decades ago, talking about… https://t.co/XULisN44Lv — Palmer Luckey (@PalmerLuckey) February 1, 2026 Marc Andreeseen vs. Democrats Marc Andreessen has distanced himself from the Democratic Party, in part because, he says, he viewed the Biden administration’s approach to the tech industry as overly heavy-handed. He had been criticizing liberal institutions even before that shift, telling The New York Times last year that, “the young children of the privileged going to the top universities between 2008 to 2012, they basically radicalized hard at the universities.” He has also jokingly suggested that billionaires who support liberal causes made frequent trips to Epstein’s island. Paul Graham vs. The President On the other side of the billionaire aisle, Paul Graham, who has recently criticized ICE’s treatment of protesters and observers, has repeatedly suggested that The President is attempting to distract the public from the Epstein files by stoking other forms of political chaos. Graham donated extensively to Biden and Harris, and wrote ahead of the 2024 election that The President “seems completely without shame” and “ran the White House like a mob boss.” The stuff about The President in the Epstein files must be really bad. — Paul Graham (@paulg) January 13, 2026 Steve Bannon vs. Ben Shapiro Steve Bannon, a leading figure in the Make America Great Again nationalist wing of the conservative movement, and Ben Shapiro, a right-wing YouTube influencer and cofounder of The Daily Wire, both previously worked at Breitbart (though not harmoniously). The two have long despised one another, in part because of sharp disagreements over Israel, but also because of their vastly different approaches to The President, the alt-right, and conservative ideology more broadly. Bannon called Shapiro a “cancer” at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest last year, and Shapiro has repeatedly criticized Bannon’s faction of the party. With the release of additional Epstein files, Shapiro has seized on the disclosures to attack Bannon for allegedly helping Epstein with “PR rehab,” even devoting an entire episode of his show to the subject, titled “The Bannon-Epstein Connection REVEALED.” View the full article

UK bank cuts ties with Global Counsel over frustrations with the way it has handled its founder’s remaining stakeView the full article