Author: openjargon

• Artechouse is an art firm that displays digital exhibitions in US cities.
• It showcases works that use extended reality and AI to push the boundaries of immersive art.
• This article is part of "Build IT," a series about digital-tech trends disrupting industries.

When the husband-and-wife duo Sandro Kereselidze and Tatiana Pastukhova came up with the idea for Artechouse, the experiential-art firm they cofounded in 2015, it was hard to explain what they were doing. "Immersive art" wasn't a catchphrase.

Today, immersive art — which uses technology to engage the viewer in an exhibition — is everywhere. Around the world, there have been several immersive-art exhibitions dedicated to the work of Vincent van Gogh. Glimpse, a market-research and trend-tracking company, said in February that search interest in immersive art had increased by 27% over the past year.

Artechouse, which has permanent locations in Miami, New York, Houston, and Washington, DC, has a 14-person creative and production team, including contractors and full-time employees, to transform artists' work into digital and experiential art. The company's exhibitions feature extended reality, which merges physical and virtual worlds.

Among the 40 immersive shows Artechouse has done so far is "Isekai: Blooming Parallel Worlds" in Washington, DC. The exhibition involves a gallery surrounding visitors with digital cherry blossoms and a separate room with an interactive music installation. It uses 360-degree projection mapping, at a resolution of 18K, to create panoramic images.

Pastukhova said Artechouse aims to showcase digital exhibitions that challenge artists and use "new technologies and new methods."

Bringing the future to the present

One of the artists who has partnered with Artechouse is Vince Fraser, an Afro-surrealist in London known for embracing tech.

"I was looking for how I could create my digital artwork and then put it within an actual physical space," Fraser said. In 2014, he started researching immersive spaces. "Back then, it wasn't really a big thing," he said. "There were only a few people doing it."

In 2021, Fraser teamed up with Artechouse for an audiovisual exhibition, narrated by the poet Ursula Rucker, that celebrates the Black experience. The show, which opened in Miami and has since traveled, features an immersive room and an interactive area with augmented-reality technology.

A highlight of the exhibit for Fraser is the auxiliary gallery, called "Thousand Masks," which speaks to African kings' and queens' power, identity, and culture.

Fraser credits Artechouse's big production team with executing his vision in a short time. "It usually takes about six months to produce a show, but we only had three months to produce this," Fraser said. "We were working day and night to get it finished. So I was super proud to have been able to do it in such a short period."

The exhibition is in New York until November.

AI enters the picture

Last year, Artechouse ventured into generative AI with the launch of "World of AI•magination," housed in the company's main gallery in New York. The multidisciplinary project creates experimental scenes using Stable Diffusion, a text-to-image model, and a generative adversarial network, a machine-learning model that generates data.

Riki Kim, Artechouse's executive creative director, said the models used to generate the visuals were trained on images "designed specifically for each scene."

AI art isn't without controversy. Fraser, who uses generative AI in his work, acknowledged other creators' concerns. "I've had conversations with other artists, and they're not very keen on the whole AI stuff," he said. "I kind of get it, because obviously a lot of these models are trained on data, and a lot of the data which they've used are from existing artists. A lot of artists feel very uncomfortable about that."

Kereselidze said people should stay creative and use AI "as a tool and not vice versa."

"AI in the next two to three years can create pretty much anything that you desire. Anything that artists can do as humans," he continued. "It is kind of a questionable dark side that we need to be aware of. We need to be conscious about what we teach these tools."

Fraser predicted that AI would play a major role in the near future of immersive art. "I personally never thought I would be alive to see what's happening now with what is capable in terms of creativity," said Fraser, who's 52. "For me, it's just endless possibilities now."

Kereselidze is looking forward to those possibilities. "In this field, we learn as we go," he said. "It's exciting, it's nerve-racking, but it's something that is rewarding, because when the final project comes to life, it's just a beautiful experience to watch audiences interacting and engaging with the artwork."

• A doctor accused of purposely driving his family off a cliff in a Tesla can now avoid trial.
• A judge granted Dharmesh Patel's request for mental health diversion. 
• The DA whose office brought attempted murder charges against Patel told BI he was "disappointed."

The California doctor who was accused of purposely driving his Tesla off a cliff with his family inside has been handed the chance to get the charges against him dismissed.

A San Mateo County judge on June 20 granted Dharmesh Patel's request to participate in a mental health diversion program, which would allow him to avoid a trial on charges of attempted murder.

San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe, whose office brought charges against Patel, panned Judge Susan Jakubowski's order, telling Business Insider on Wednesday that he was "disappointed with the court's decision."

"Judge Jakubowski carefully weighed the evidence and the facts and went the other way," Wagstaffe said. "If I were judge, I would definitely have ruled the opposite, but that is how our criminal justice system works. We do not get to win them all."

The ability to participate in diversion programs — for juveniles, veterans, or defendants struggling with mental health diagnoses or substance abuse struggles — is an increasingly popular alternative to jail sentences across the US.

When defendants who have been charged with crimes are allowed to participate in these specialized programs, which vary by state, they are generally required to participate in therapy or medical services tailored to their needs. When defendants complete the programming successfully, they often avoid a harsher sentence, or trial — and sometimes prevent an arraignment on the charges completely.

Patel was charged last year with three counts of attempted murder after he drove his wife and two young kids off a notorious 250-foot cliff in Northern California on January 2, 2023. He later pleaded not guilty.

The family miraculously survived the plunge off the cliff known as Devil's Slide.

Patel's wife screamed to rescuers at the scene that her husband, a radiologist, "tried to kill us" and that "he intentionally drove the car over" the edge, Wagstaffe previously told BI.

Still, the wife said she did not want her husband prosecuted and previously asked the court to release him from jail.

During last Thursday's hearing, Jakubowski determined that Patel was eligible for the state's mental health diversion program and "concluded the proper diagnosis for the defendant's mental illness was major depressive disorder, which is a qualifying mental disorder under the statute," according to the district attorney's office.

Patel has been locked up in the county jail since last year and will remain there for several more weeks for what was called a "bridging period" before officially being released, the DA's office said.

The judge ordered that Patel return to court once a week for progress reports, be monitored by GPS, reside in San Mateo County at his parents home, and, for the first two months, he can only leave his residence to go to court or mental health treatment sessions, according to the DA's office.

Under the court order, Patel must also test twice a week to show medication compliance, not use alcohol or drugs, possess no weapons, and surrender his driver's license and passport.

Wagstaffe told BI the charges against Patel have now been suspended and if he successfully completes the two years of the diversion program, the charges would be automatically dismissed.

"If during the two years he violates any of the requirements for diversion that Judge Jakubowski will impose, he can have his diversion revoked and the charges of attempted murder will go forward," said Wagstaffe.

Patel's attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, Wagstaffe told BI that though he was upset by the judge's ruling, his "pique" was with the California Legislature and the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, "who feel that including violent crimes like attempted murder within the mental health diversion law does not endanger public safety."

Under California law, defendants are ineligible for the diversion program if they have been charged with other offenses, including murder, involuntary manslaughter, and rape.

" I disagree fervently with their conclusion," the DA said.

The governor's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Sam's Club uses a system of floor-scrubbing robots that have AI inventory scanners.
• These devices do the work that once required an employee to walk every aisle to check inventory.
• A worker tells BI this automation has made his job more enjoyable, and eased his concerns about AI.

When it comes to the impact of AI and automation on the workplace, there's no one-size-fits-all verdict yet.

For warehouse workers, a global study by Accenture in 2022 found that more than 40% expressed "negative sentiment" about automation potentially leading to their replacement.

"I had general sense of fear of losing my job to robots," a Sam's Club forklift operator told Business Insider. "But after seeing the company's approach to it, I don't think I'm losing my job specifically in the near future."

The worker, who requested anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the media, said his attitude shifted after the Walmart-owned warehouse club rolled out a new fleet of floor-scrubbing robots at US locations starting in 2022.

Not only do these robots clean the warehouse floors autonomously, Sam's Club CEO Chris Nicholas says they're also equipped with AI-enabled cameras, which "do 23 million scans a day in our clubs of all of the inventory all around the club, including what's on the floor."

The forklift driver told BI that before these machines arrived, one of his tasks at the end of each shift was to walk through every aisle of the warehouse making note of which items he needed to prioritize when he clocked in at 4 a.m. the next morning.

Thanks to computer vision and artificial intelligence, the robot floor scrubbers now generate that list automatically, giving him more time to do more enjoyable parts of his job.

And the more he sees what these automated systems can do, the more he understands what they can't.

"They're gonna need me to work on the freight anyway," he said, referring to unloading pallets of merchandise from trucks. "They need a human — a robot cannot work on the freight."

Sam's Club's CEO also said in a recent interview with Jefferies that he wants these tools to free up workers' time to help customers.

"It's a very human thing," Nicholas said. "By them doing fewer things that they don't want to do, they get to spend time with the people that we should be spending time with."

• On a recent long-haul, round-trip flight, I sat in the front and back of Lufthansa's economy cabin. 
• Each seat had perks. People at the front had food options, but the back had a galley for stretching. 
• I'm still partial to the back, but I understand why people prefer the front. 

It's a hot take, but I love the back of a plane — especially on a long-haul flight.

But after a handful of long-haul flights tucked away in the rear of economy, I decided to see if my preference remained strong.

On a recent round-trip, long-haul Lufthansa flight between Denver and Germany, I decided to compare the two areas of economy. For my outbound flight, I sat in row 42, the third to last economy row. For my return trip, I was seated in row 11, the first economy row.

Each seat had its perks, but I'm sticking with the back of the plane.

When it came to food service, the front wins

A few hours into my return flight to Denver, flight attendants came around with carts full of meals. Each passenger was asked a simple question: chicken or pasta?

This wasn't the case when I was seated in the back. When flight attendants reached the second-to-last row of economy, they had run out of options. Each passenger was handed a tray of beef and mashed potatoes.

This isn't the first time that's happened to me while seated in the back. Last year, a similar situation occurred on a flight to Tokyo.

If I was a picky eater, this reason alone could sway me to opt for a front-row seat. Instead, I typically request a vegetarian meal for long-haul flights, so my meal is already picked before boarding the plane.

My main focus — regardless of whether it's the front or back — is to avoid the bathrooms

When I'm cramped in a tight space, the last thing I want to worry about is a bathroom smell wafting around me for more than 10 hours.

So, my No. 1 priority when picking a long-haul seat is sitting far from the bathrooms. On many larger aircraft, the economy bathrooms are stationed in the middle of the cabin.

For my 10-hour flight to Germany, I was in the back of economy, and there wasn't a bathroom directly behind me. Instead, a galley was just a few feet away, ideal for a quick stretch break.

I also didn't have a bathroom nearby for my return flight at the front. If I opt for the front on a future flight, I'll double-check that the premium economy cabin has no bathrooms in the back.

A few days before each flight, open seats remained in the back of the plane

I've been lucky enough to have one or two long-haul flights without a middle-seat passenger. I've celebrated every bit of extra room and tried hard to recreate that luck.

I'm convinced your best chance of having an empty seat is if you're in the back of a cabin. Since most people avoid the rear, those seats are chosen last, or hopefully not chosen at all.

A few days before each flight, I checked the seat map and noticed my theory was correct. The majority of the empty seats remaining were toward the back of economy.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the case when I boarded the plane. Both flights were fully booked, meaning I would've been sitting next to someone no matter where I was on the plane.

On one flight, sitting in the rear helped me disembark faster

One of the main arguments for sitting in the front of economy is that you get off the plane faster.

While that's been the case on most long-haul flights, it wasn't when we landed at the Munich airport. Instead, flight attendants informed the passengers that we'd use both the front and back doors for disembarking. Since I was seated in the back, I was off the plane in no time.

However, had I been sitting in the back on my return flight, I would've been one of the last people off the plane. This would have also meant a much longer line when I reached customs.

Ultimately, no economy seat on a long-haul flight is ideal, but I'm sticking with the back

No matter the seat, a 10-hour flight isn't fun. I've learned to be patient and celebrate small wins, like getting a window seat or having an empty seat nearby.

Ultimately, everyone has their preferences. Mine just happens to be at the back of the plane, where I have a galley for stretching and a better chance at an empty seat.

• I took a red-eye flight from NYC to Berlin to start a two-week trip to Europe in October 2022.
• For $180, I flew through the night with Norse Atlantic Airways and had a row of seats to myself. 
• Although I thought the flight itself was ideal for a red-eye, I started my trip feeling exhausted.

In October 2022, I flew from my home in NYC to Berlin for a two-week train trip through Europe.

When booking air travel, I usually choose the cheapest nonstop flight leaving from my local airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). For this trip, that option was an eight-hour red-eye flight on an airline I'd never heard of, Norse Atlantic Airways.

Norse Atlantic Airways is a new budget airline that started flying in 2022 with nonstop trips from the US to Germany, Norway, the UK, France, and Italy, according to its website.

I booked the lowest tier of ticket — economy light, which included a seat and space to store a personal item for $88. I also paid $75 to select my window seat in advance and a $20 check-in fee at the airport, for a grand total of $183.

I like how domestic red-eye flights give me an extra day at my destination, but I'd never taken one internationally. And I found that the long-haul flight through the night left me exhausted at the beginning of my trip. To me, it wasn't worth the day I saved.

I arrived at JFK at 9:30 p.m. for my 12:30 a.m. flight.

I could have checked in online for free, but I wanted to print my boarding pass at the airport.

On a late Sunday evening, the terminal at JFK felt quite empty.

Aside from people in line to board an aircraft, I hardly saw anyone.

My flight began boarding at 11:30 p.m.

I was among the last to board and got situated in my seat right around midnight.

The flight's seating arrangement was three columns with three seats in each row.

I paid extra to select a window seat before the flight so that I could lean against the window to rest.

A representative from Norse told BI that economy light seats are 17.2 inches wide with a 3-inch recline.

It felt like a standard plane seat to me.

I thought I had enough legroom even with my backpack shoved underneath the seat.

The seat pitch was between 27 and 32 inches, according to the representative.

There was an entertainment screen with movies, TV shows, and information about my flight in front of me.

Although I spent most of the time trying to sleep, I appreciated having the screen.

As the plane prepared for takeoff, I was thrilled that I had a whole row to myself.

In fact, I noticed many of the seats were empty.

My seat back pocket contained a menu of amenities, including earbuds, blankets, neck pillows, and sleep masks, although I didn't buy any.

Amenity prices ranged from $3.50 to $6.50.

After takeoff, the plane was quiet and dimly lit. But I hardly ever sleep well on planes, and this was no exception.

I woke several times through the night.

At one point in the night, I went to the bathroom and found it cleaner than most aircraft bathrooms I've been in.

Unlike most economy aircraft bathrooms I've used, the floor wasn't sticky and the trash can wasn't overflowing. 

In the morning, flight attendants came around with food and beverage service. So I looked at the menu in my seat back pocket.

I found that food and beverages weren't included in the price of my ticket, so I decided to skip it.

I landed in Berlin nearly an hour earlier than scheduled, so I was only in the air for seven hours.

Still, when I got off the plane, I felt completely exhausted due to a lack of sleep.

Despite feeling tired, as I would after any red-eye flight, I was impressed by the budget airline and would definitely book with Norse again.

The flight was comfortable and clean, and landing early was a nice bonus.

Once in Berlin, I still had a two-hour train journey to my Airbnb outside the city, and I could barely keep my eyes open.

Even after a night of sleep, I found that the exhaustion from the overnight flight — combined with jet lag — lasted for days. This wasn't ideal at the start of a two-week adventure.

My exhaustion wore off within a couple of days of my trip, but I had a lingering thought — next time I fly internationally, I won't mind spending a little more money and a little less time at my destination for a day flight.

• The "Perfect Match" season two finale aired last week, but the drama has continued on social media.
• Contestants are accusing each other of inappropriate behavior and forming secret pacts.
• This is not a new phenomenon, but "Perfect Match" stars seem to be taking post-show drama to a new level.

Warning: spoilers ahead for "Perfect Match" season two.

"Perfect Match" season two may have ended last week, but the drama is just getting started.

Last week, Netflix aired the season two finale, where Christine Obanor and Nigel Jones were voted the winners and Harry Jowsey was exposed for lying about kissing another contestant behind his partner's back.

Fans may have thought the season's biggest controversies would have been solved during the finale. But, now its stars have turned to social media, accusing contestants of secret pacts, homophobic and misogynistic behavior, and lying to their partners.

The stars claim these incidents were cut from the final episodes to fit the series' narrative.

This could be a tactic for the stars to boost their brands after the season ended. For example, Harry is bringing new fans to his podcast, "Boyfriend Material" by using this platform to comment on the show.

Some cast members may also want to use their new fame to criticize costars they feel were protected by the show's final cut.

Since last Friday, multiple contestants have released videos telling their side of the story, including a 27-minute YouTube video from Christine. She accuses Kaz Bishop of being a gaslighter, says Micah Lussier is a "mean girl," and claims Alara Taneri tried to DM her boyfriend Nigel while they were still together.

Meanwhile, Chris Hahn stirred up an argument among cast members last week after he said on TikTok that some contestants formed a pact to vote for Christine and Nigel would win.

Christine and Brittan Byrd hit back on social media, saying that the main couples in the show made their own secret agreement to keep new singles out of the main house so they couldn't take part in the competition.

Christine, Brittan, Dominique Defoe, and Xanthi Perdikomatis are meanwhile calling out men on the series, especially Stevan Ditter, Kaz Bishop, Bryton Constantin, and Chris.

They said Stevan, Kaz, and Chris complained that they weren't with the right partner and hit on other women during the boys' day out and the whole cast mixer the following day. Christine said Stevan sucked Melinda Berry's toes during the boy's day out, and Brittan said Chris tried to match with her during the mixer.

Christine and Brittan also said Kaz tried to match with Brittan immediately after coupling up with Christine at the mixer but was rejected.

Chris responded to the women's videos on Wednesday, saying on TikTok that they are making "a whole bunch of bullshit" and calling them fake. He said the women were civil with him when they attended a party he hosted two weeks ago.

Brittan and Dominique have also come for Bryton on TikTok over the last month, accusing him of making homophobic and misogynistic comments on and off-camera.

Bryton denied Dominique's claims about being homophobic and misogynistic on TikTok earlier this month, claiming that Dominique lied about him and just "hates men." He has not commented on Brittan's TikTok, published on Monday.

This is not the first time reality show drama has continued past a series finale, and even the "Perfect Match" season one cast, which was less scandalous than season two, had a few public arguments.

But these videos are starting to make fans question whether the narrative Netflix is presenting them is genuine.

The series' integrity was already being questioned after season two contestant Dom Gabriel shared a deleted scene on social media last week that highlighted that the producers edited a conversation with Tolú Ekundare to make him seem like a villain. The video was first shared by Kinetic Content, the production team behind the show.

With no end in sight for the "Perfect Match" drama, perhaps the series should take a leaf out of "Love Is Blind" and organize a live cast reunion to address everything.

A representative for Netflix did not immediately respond to a comment request from Business Insider.

Alara, Brittan, Bryton, Chris, Christine, Dominique, Kaz, Micah Stevan, and Xanthi have also been contacted for comment.

• Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky said AI hasn't changed most people's lives yet.
• Despite ChatGPT's 2022 introduction, apps have still remained largely the same, he said.
• Chesky expects apps to look very different within two to three years.

There have been a lot of predictions about how AI will change the world — but you're not alone if it hasn't impacted your life yet.

Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky thinks that will manifest in the next two to three years.

Chesky spoke to CNBC during the Aspen Ideas Festival about how, despite AI's grand expectations spurred by ChatGPT's introduction in 2022, people's everyday apps and products they use have yet to truly change or transform.

"You pick up your phone, look at every app in your home screen, and they're almost exactly the same," Chesky said. "So AI hasn't actually changed our daily life. It's captured our imagination, a little bit of our fear, but it hasn't changed our app."

The Airbnb cofounder said that AI features have yet to reach "that last 10%" where "all the gains are."

With most tech companies still in the midst of unveiling future projects — Airbnb itself has plans to leverage AI after recently acquiring an AI startup from Siri's cofounder — actual product development is still nascent.

For now, AI rollouts have introduced milder improvements, like dedicated chatbots or customer service tools. But system-level integrations are on the way, such as Apple Intelligence, which begins rolling out later this year and promises to proofread your emails and quickly do the math on when you'll need to leave the house in order to pick up your friend from the airport.

But Chesky said he expects apps across the board to look very different within two to three years.

"I think next year you're going to see a bit of a step forward, and I think within 2026, you'll see a giant leap," Chesky said.

The Airbnb cofounder has made similar statements in the past.

"Take your phone and look at all the icons on your phone. Most of those apps have not fundamentally changed since the advent of generative AI," he told investors during Airbnb's Q4 earnings call.

Just don't expect it to stay that way.

• I'm a Californian who visited Jacksonville Beach, Florida, for a spring getaway.
• Everything was generally more low-key in Jacksonville, and the beach was less crowded.
• Both cities are family-friendly and walkable, but finding parking in Florida was less stressful.

I've lived in Los Angeles for five years, so I'm about 30 minutes inland from Santa Monica. It's a beautiful, classic Southern California destination with a beach, a pier, and an abundance of classy shopping and dining spots.  

But I decided to visit Jacksonville Beach, Florida, (or "Jax Beach" as I heard it referred to by many locals) for a spring trip. I liked that it's still on the "up and coming" end of the tourism spectrum. It felt like an unpretentious surfers' paradise.

Jacksonville Beach felt similar to Santa Monica, but there were also a few distinct differences between the beach towns on either coast. 

The ocean is actually warm enough for me to swim in at Jacksonville Beach.

I signed up for a surf lesson with Thompson Surf School in Jacksonville Beach, and I didn't even need a wet suit (which is usually customary for surfers in the chilly SoCal water).

I love swimming in the Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast because, to me, it feels warmer than the Pacific Ocean in California. 

Santa Monica's public transportation is much better than Jacksonville Beach's options.

Santa Monica has a Metro line that connects right to downtown LA and throughout the city.

Jacksonville Beach was honestly pretty walkable for most of what I needed during my stay, so I didn't have to drive many places. But there weren't any easy public-transit options.

Jacksonville Beach felt easier and less overwhelming to navigate on foot.

Jacksonville Beach itself is roughly 22 square miles, but most tourist spots are within walking distance of the pier. 

Santa Monica is only about 8 square miles. But it's densely populated and feels a little chaotic in most of the touristy areas, which is more stressful to me. 

The restaurant and bar scene is more polished (and pricier) in Santa Monica.

If you're looking for the hottest new restaurant or the chicest rooftop bar, Santa Monica is your place. The culinary scene is undeniably world-class. 

But if you're just looking for a burger, burrito, and beer, you'll be perfectly happy in Jacksonville Beach. You'll also probably save more than a few dollars while eating out. 

Santa Monica's Pacific Pier offers fun games, but it can feel a bit chaotic in the busier season.

Jacksonville's pier is smaller. But it just went through an 11 million dollar, multiyear upgrade. It's also a good option if you're looking to just chill out and have a laid-back day going fishing or admiring the coastal scenery.

If you're looking for a day of games, rides, and treats along the water though, Santa Monica's Pacific Pier is probably more up your alley.

Jacksonville Beach's weather is less predictable.

In Jacksonville, you could have sunny skies in the morning and get stuck in an afternoon thunderstorm. The Florida city is also more humid. 

In Santa Monica, and Southern California in general, the weather is known for being pretty consistently sunny and warm. But many tourists aren't prepared for the "June Gloom" weather that's actually pretty cold and foggy for some or most of the day.

Either way, you should definitely bust out the sunblock in both spots. 

Jacksonville Beach still has plenty of room to develop new hotels and restaurants.

The SpringHill Suites in Jacksonville Beach just opened in April 2023. And from what I could tell, it seemed like there was plenty of room to build more accommodations along the city's coast in the future. 

Santa Monica's coastline looks pretty maxed out in terms of development. I'm not sure how many brand-new buildings or hotels will be popping up there anytime soon.

But if you're going for opulence and elegance, you'll most likely prefer the lodging options in Santa Monica because there are multiple convenient, upscale hotels like Shutters on the Beach or Viceroy Santa Monica. 

In Jacksonville Beach, my time at the Springhill Suites was lovely and clean with oceanfront views. But it wasn't overly showy in any way. 

Santa Monica is more accommodating of dietary restrictions.

The Los Angeles area is known for accommodating all kinds of diners — especially on the west side, where Santa Monica is located. 

Although there were ample options for milk alternatives at the coffee shop I frequented during my trip to Jacksonville Beach, I don't think the city offered the same dietary variety. 

It was easier to find parking in Jacksonville Beach — and it cost less, too.

I love spending a day in Santa Monica on the beach during the summer. But I know I have to be prepared to spend at least $15 on parking if I want to hang out for more than a couple of hours.

Plus it can be hard to find a spot due to the volume of people coming from seemingly everywhere to visit the iconic beach town.

In Jacksonville Beach, I didn't have a problem finding parking — even on the weekend — and the lot prices maxed out at $7. Registered Jacksonville Beach residents even get to park for free. 

Both destinations are pretty family-friendly.

As someone who spends a fair amount of time out and about exploring Santa Monica, the Southern California city seems to have a much younger population than Jacksonville Beach.

In addition to the beach, Santa Monica offers plenty of family-friendly activities. There's Pacific Park, an amusement park on the pier, and the Third Street Promenade, a pedestrian-only shopping street, among other spots.

You can also rent bikes and explore the Marvin Braude Bike Trail (frequently referred to by locals as "The Strand"), which is a 22-mile paved beach path that travels from Santa Monica all the way down to Torrance Beach. 

Jacksonville Beach also has a safe, wide, and sandy beach. When I went, the pier was filled with groups of people fishing (including some families).

Adventure Landing Jacksonville Beach, a water park, also offers mini golf, go-karts, batting cages, and an arcade. There's even places to rent bikes and take surfing lessons nearby.

It's easier to bring your pups to the beach in the Florida city.

Jacksonville Beach is a little more pet-friendly than Santa Monica since dogs are actually allowed on the sands of the beach. There are just certain time restrictions depending on the season, and the dogs have to be leashed. 

When I went out to eat at a brewery one evening in Florida, I was also surrounded by pups on the outdoor patio.

Santa Monica is pretty dog-friendly, too, even though pets aren't allowed on the public state beach. The website has a pretty extensive guide to where you can and can't bring your pets along in town. 

The destinations are about the same distance from the nearest commercial airport.

It takes about 30 to 40 minutes to drive from Los Angeles International Airport to Santa Monica. That's about the same amount of time it took me to get to the beach from Jacksonville International Airport.

Both cities also happen to be within a couple of hours of the Disney parks. Santa Monica is about two hours northwest of Disneyland, and Jacksonville Beach is about 2 1/2 hours from Disney World.

There are some beautiful outdoor parks and green spaces on both coasts.

There are some beautiful parks in Santa Monica. My personal favorite is Palisades Park because it features gorgeous views of the ocean. 

In Jacksonville Beach, I really enjoyed spending time at Oceanfront Park, which also offers beautiful waterfront views.

I'd prefer a laid-back vacation in Jacksonville Beach over a trip to Santa Monica.

Overall, I enjoy both cities. But the vacation vibes I personally go for are more relaxed and low-key, so I'd recommend Jacksonville Beach over Santa Monica.

Jacksonville Beach felt less crowded, and it was easier to find parking, which can be a challenge in any beach city during the busy season. 

It felt overall more casual of a vacation destination to me — from how people dressed to the atmosphere at the local restaurants to the cost of food, lodging, and goodies at the low-key local boutiques. 

This story was originally published in June 2023 and most recently updated on June 27, 2024. 

• Billionaire Joe Ricketts is building a luxury resort in Wyoming — to the dismay of some locals.
• Ricketts' request to bypass wildlife protections was denied by Sublette County.
• He's far from the only billionaire to clash with his neighbors.

As one local put it, if Bondurant, Wyoming — a town of wide open spaces and a population of 156, per the 2022 census — "is not heaven, it's in the same ZIP code."

"It's God's country," Joshua Coursey continued to Business Insider. He's the CEO and president of the Muley Fanatic Foundation, which is dedicated to protecting the native mule deer.

And in God's country, it looks like mule deer will remain protected.

In a plotline straight out of Paramount's soapy western "Yellowstone," billionaire Joe Ricketts — the TD Ameritrade founder, part-owner of the Chicago Cubs, and Donald Trump mega-donor — got shut down by Sublette County, Wyoming, where he had requested the removal of a local restriction meant to protect moose, elk, and, yes, mule deer.

Earlier this spring, Ricketts, worth $4.1 billion, per Forbes, broke ground on the luxury Homestead Resort, which is set to feature a 20-unit hotel, underground spa, and restaurant. He calls it "Little Jackson Hole," though, in reality, billionaire hot spot Jackson Hole is in neighboring Teton County.

"If I advertise as Bondurant, well, nobody in Los Angeles and New York knows where it is," Ricketts, who bought land in the area 20 years ago, said at a public meeting last year, according to local news outlet WyoFile. "But if I advertise Little Jackson Hole, every angler knows where it is. Northwest Wyoming is a mecca for fishing trout."

(He's also pointed to the historical name of the area as a guiding principle for the name, though it doesn't seem locals are buying it.)

Part of his pitch was the conservation effort associated with the resort: Ricketts promised to make the 56 acres a safe place for moose, elk, and the like — and to use tourism dollars to ensure the land stays safe.

"We will open up corridors across my ranch during the migration season so that the ungulates can go through," he reportedly said at last year's meeting. "Now remember, I told you, we have to get tourists to pay for this stuff in order for it to be successful." (It's unclear if anyone at the meeting asked why he can't just pay for the corridors with his own money, as he has previously donated to the cause.)

In order to get tourists there, he'd have to build a hotel — but according to the proposal by a representative for Ricketts at a town meeting last week, the best way to build a safe haven for the ungulates of the West would be to sidestep some of the rules protecting them, specifically, the one that prevents construction between November 15 and April 30.

The representative proposed that the wildlife protections be put on pause to allow construction to continue this fall and winter, with certain measures in place — such as a speed limit, no work once the sun had gone down, and maintaining a corridor in which the animals could move.

While the regional wildlife coordinator for Wyoming Game and Fish supported the proposal, Ricketts' neighbors were another story, the Nebraska Examiner said.

"Does anybody in this room actually believe that after three years the construction is going to stop?" one local reportedly said, adding that Ricketts took the approach of "a used car salesman."

In the end, the irked neighbors got their way: The Sublette County Commission voted 3 to 2 against Ricketts.

It was "much to the liking of everybody that understands and appreciates why those rules are in place and the importance of not having that disturbance on the landscape when those critters are most vulnerable," the Muley Fanatic Foundation's Coursey said.

Ricketts, whose representatives declined to comment to BI, is joining a long tradition of billionaires upsetting a bunch of less-rich locals for any host of reasons — and often, the quarrels spin out into lawsuits.

Utah's richest man, tech billionaire Matthew Prince, is currently embroiled in a legal battle with his Park City neighbors, who are trying to prevent him from constructing a modern megamansion above the city's historic town. (Prince has filed a lawsuit against two of his neighbors that revolves heavily around their Bernese mountain dogs and seemed to admit to The Daily Beast that it was retaliatory.)

Bond investor Bill Gross was sued in 2020 by his Laguna Beach, California, neighbor for, in part, blasting the "Gilligan's Island" theme song and installing a $1 million Dale Chihuly sculpture. Gross said the music was not an effort to annoy anyone purposefully, but a judge sided against him.

Meantime, since 2008, VC billionaire Vinod Khosla has been in some sort of legal back-and-forth after attempting to block the public from using his Bay Area property to access a neighboring beach.

This wasn't even the first time Ricketts has upset residents of the rural Wyoming county. His bid to rezone his land to build a hotel was shot down twice before being approved in 2021, and last year, a request to expand the resort's size was denied.

"He's like a little boy, and he wants all the toys. That's what I kind of equate it to," one local told The Daily Beast about Ricketts at the time.

Still, Coursey pointed out that the upheaval associated with building a resort like this in the relatively unspoiled landscape of Wyoming would always be a "tough pill to swallow" for locals. "That's just not something that's ever going to be well received, whether it was Mr. Ricketts or the next billionaire with a big dream and a big plan."

And in the end, Ricketts is getting his big dream and big plan — just not when he wants it. According to estimates at the town meeting, the hotel will now take six years to build rather than three.

• Supreme Court will likely discard the Chevron doctrine, which empowers federal agencies.
• The decision could make it easier for courts to block President Joe Biden's climate policies.
• Business and conservative groups argue the Chevron doctrine leads to federal overreach.

Climate advocates and business groups are closely watching the US Supreme Court this week.

The court could issue a ruling that sharply curtails the federal government's power to regulate the environment, including President Joe Biden's climate policies.

The case involves a group of commercial fishermen who opposed fees they had to pay to have federal observers aboard their vessels to prevent overfishing. But at the center is 40 decades of legal precedent known as the Chevron doctrine that has shaped the role of federal agencies.

Business groups and conservatives argue that the doctrine allows federal bureaucrats to overstep their authority on issues related not only to the environment but to broad swaths of the economy. The lawyers representing the commercial fisherman are from the Cause of Action Institute, a nonprofit group in the libertarian network built by Charles Koch, the petrochemicals billionaire who has advocated for deregulation.

Environmental groups are worried that overturning the Chevron doctrine will make it easier for courts to block regulations, especially those from the Biden administration designed to curb greenhouse-gas emissions that are warming the planet.

Here's what to know:

What is the Chevron doctrine?

Congress writes laws, and federal agencies write the rules to implement them. But Congress isn't always clear, and it doesn't regularly update old laws to reflect scientific or technological advancements.

The Chevron doctrine holds that when the law is ambiguous, courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation, as long as it's reasonable. These agencies are often staffed by people with technical and scientific expertise that judges don't have.

That precedent stems from a 1984 court case over air-pollution rules issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under President Ronald Reagan. The decision was actually a defeat for environmentalists; the Natural Resources Defense Council had sought a more expansive definition of pollutants at big industrial plants like Chevron's but lost.

"The doctrine was neutral," said David Doniger, a senior attorney at the NRDC who argued the original Chevron case on behalf of the group. "It originally came up in a Reagan administration effort to weaken the Clean Air Act."

Doniger said that since then, the Chevron opinion has been cited more than 15,000 times by courts across the country. But he added that as the Obama and Biden administrations have pushed for stronger environmental policies, business groups and conservatives have come to see Chevron as "systematically enabling the government to do more."

Where do the justices stand?

Legal experts say the Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, is likely to overturn or significantly limit the Chevron doctrine.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said in oral arguments in January that Chevron was problematic for small businesses and individuals with little power to influence federal agencies.

But Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee, argued that health, safety, and environmental regulations protecting the public could be upended if Chevron were overturned.

What could be affected?

Doniger said that while reining in Chevron could make it easier to win cases aimed at rolling back Biden's climate policies, it's hard to make predictions without knowing the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling.

The EPA over the past year has set stricter limits on emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas infrastructure, as well as on toxic chemicals in tap water — all of which are the targets of lawsuits from Republican-led states, the fossil-fuel industry, or other businesses.

"Lawyers will try to characterize these rules as stretching EPA authority," Doniger said.

Meanwhile, he added, administrative lawyers have been preparing for this very scenario at the Supreme Court. Biden's EPA hasn't relied on the Chevron doctrine to defend its climate rules.

That's a departure from the Obama years, when the EPA cited the Chevron doctrine in its attempt to set the first limits on carbon emissions from power plants. Lengthy court battles ensued, and the Trump administration ultimately shelved the plan.