Author: openjargon

• I tried chicken tenders from Popeyes, Chick-fil-A, Whataburger, Raising Cane's, KFC, Bojangles, Zaxby's, and Cook Out.
• Popeyes' and KFC's chicken tenders were similar in their crispy texture and flavor.
• Raising Cane's impressed me with its crispy-yet-juicy tenders and delicious signature sauce.

I compared chicken tenders from eight different fast-food chains from across the country, and a lesser-known — but quickly expanding — chain took the top spot. 

Chicken is a hugely popular item at many fast-food chains, and some chains have built their entire business off this one menu item.

Todd Graves, the richest person in Louisiana with a net worth of $9.1 billion, is the founder and CEO of the chicken-tender restaurant chain Raising Cane's. Graves opened his first restaurant in 1996, and Cane's is growing rapidly, with more than 750 restaurants in the US and internationally and $3.7 billion in annual sales, Forbes reported. 

While Raising Cane's isn't the only chain that offers chicken tenders, it may very well be the best. 

Here's how eight fast-food chicken tenders ranked, from worst to best, based on taste and value.

Of all the chicken tenders I tried, the ones from Whataburger didn't completely wow me.

A three-piece chicken tender cost only $6.72 at Whataburger at the location I visited in Austin, Texas. 

The chicken tenders were large and perfectly fried.

I thought the tenders could only be described as "classic" — they weren't anything out-of-the-box, but I enjoyed them.

The meat inside was juicy, but I thought the fried coating could have had a bit more crunch.

The chicken tenders tasted good on their own, as well as with ranch dipping sauce. They weren't bad by any stretch of the imagination. However, I did think the other tenders I tried were slightly crispier and had just the slightest hint of more flavor in the batter.

Regardless, for a relatively low price, I'd definitely order these again.

I also ordered chicken tenders from Cook Out, a regional chain I visited in South Carolina.

The three-piece "snack" cost $4.99, not including tax.

The chicken tenders were crispy on the outside.

They were also a good size. The price was also a great deal for the generous portion I received.

However, there wasn't an abundance of chicken meat inside.

These were undeniably classic chicken tenders, similar to the ones from Whataburger, but they were a touch too fried for my liking. However, I thought they were well-seasoned and had a lot of peppery flavor.

Chick-fil-A's chicken tenders were good … but I really just used them as a vehicle for the chain's Chick-fil-A sauce.

A three-piece chicken tender costs $8.95 at my nearest location in New York City when it's not included in a meal deal.

Some of the chicken pieces looked slightly darker and more fried than others.

There were small bits of fried breading scattered on the outside, which I always love with a chicken tender.

The chicken tenders were nicely fried but still juicy on the inside.

However, they weren't quite as crispy as I expected. I wanted a distinct crunch when I bit into the tenders, but they didn't deliver that. In the end, it's largely up to personal preference.

When I dipped them in the chain's signature Chick-fil-A sauce, the experience was nothing short of mouthwatering. However, the actual chicken tenders were just alright — it was the sauce that took them over the edge.

KFC's chicken tenders landed towards the middle of the pack.

On the day I tried these, I ordered a five-piece tender meal for $15.85, excluding taxes and fees. However, a four-piece tender meal, which comes with a side, sauce, and a drink, costs $12.80, excluding taxes and fees. 

The tenders were crispy on the outside, but I thought they were slightly on the smaller side when compared to the others I tried.

However, they did have bits of fried breading clinging to the outside that I knew would make for a nice texture.

The chicken tenders were flavorful and contained a fair amount of white meat chicken.

However, the slightly smaller size meant they didn't come out on top when compared to the last two chains I tried.

My fourth-favorite chicken tenders came from Popeyes.

A three-piece-tender combo came to $16.89, before taxes and fees. The meal deal included a large serving of fries, a drink, and a biscuit, as well as a choice from a variety of different dipping sauces. 

The chicken tenders from Popeyes were crispy, flaky, and crunchy.

I really liked the crunchy outside of the chicken tenders from Popeyes.

The meat inside was flaky and moist as well.

I also thought the batter was quite flavorful — I could taste hints of seasoning and buttermilk, although they weren't quite as buttery-tasting as the Chick-fil-A tenders. However, I thought this meal was quite expensive for only three chicken tenders, even though they were large.

I thought the chicken tenders from Bojangles were flavorful and super crispy.

A four-piece chicken tenders combo came with fries, a medium drink, and a biscuit. It cost me $12.79, excluding taxes and fees.

I thought the chicken tenders were a good size.

The texture and flavor of the breading made them taste like a cross between the chicken tenders from Chick-fil-A and Cook Out. 

The breading was peppery, just the right thickness, and perfectly encapsulated the juicy white chicken meat inside.

I also thought the price was fair considering how much food I received. The chicken tenders paired perfectly with honey mustard but were also tasty on their own. Overall, I would definitely order these again.

My second-favorite chicken tenders came from Zaxby's.

A five-piece chicken tenders combo came with fries, a small drink, coleslaw, and a piece of Texas toast. I also asked for a side of honey mustard and Zaxby's famous Zax sauce. My meal cost $15.83, excluding taxes and fees.

The chicken tenders' breading was very similar to Chick-fil-A's in its consistency, flavor, and texture, but I thought these chicken tenders had more chicken meat.

The breading was perfectly crispy and super flavorful, with a slight sweetness.

The chicken tenders held their own without sauce but were really taken to the next level when dipped in the tangy Zax sauce.

Zax sauce tastes similar to Cane's sauce, but I found it to be just ever-so-slightly less flavorful, and creamy. I also thought that it didn't have the same kick.

However, the chicken tenders really impressed me. They were a good size, extremely flavorful, and addictingly delicious. I found myself craving even more than the five chicken tenders I was given, which is rare for me.

In the end, it was a really tough call on whether I preferred Zaxby's or Raising Cane's chicken tenders.

But my favorite chicken tenders came from Raising Cane's.

My six-piece meal cost $15.99, including tax, but a three-finger combo that includes three chicken fingers, fries, Cane's sauce, Texas toast, and a regular drink costs $9.23, excluding tax and any additions or swaps. 

The chicken tenders were super crispy.

The chicken tenders were also thick. After biting in, I could actually see the strips of white chicken underneath, which, in my experience, you don't always find with fast-food chicken tenders.

The chicken tenders were super crispy and juicy on the inside — I had to give them the win.

I tried the tenders on their own and with the Cane's sauce. On their own, the tenders were simply everything one could ask for — thick, juicy, and crispy on the outside.

However, the chain is famous for its chicken-complementing sauce, and after biting in, I could definitely see why. It had a slight kick to it, was super creamy, and surprisingly tangy. It paired perfectly with the chicken and was unlike any other sauce I've ever tried.

In the end, Raising Cane's took home the win for me with the chain's near-perfect chicken tenders and fair prices.

• Sunglasses mogul James Jannard broke a California record with the sale of his $210 Malibu home.
• It's the most expensive home ever sold in California.
• Last year, Jay-Z and Beyoncé had set a record after selling their $200 million Malibu compound.

Oakley sunglasses founder James Jannard just dethroned Jay-Z and Beyoncé — at least in the world of real estate.

Jannard sold his Malibu mansion for $210 million, first reported by the Los Angeles Times. It's the most expensive home real estate sale in California's history.

Jannard had bought the estate 12 years ago for $75 million. The new owner's name is shrouded behind an anonymous LLC, the Times reported.

The mansion includes eight bedrooms, 14-bathrooms, and a tennis court spread over 9.5 acres and was once shrunken down by previous owners who found the original main home "too grandiose," according to San Francisco outlet SFGate.

The makeover was handled by Michael S. Smith, who also re-designed the White House's Oval Office in 2010.

The Jannard sale soars past the $200 million price tag Jay-Z and Beyoncé shelled out last year for their 40,000-square-foot concrete compound in Malibu.

The music industry power couple's home includes a private beach on 8 oceanfront acres.

Before then, the California record holder was venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, cofounder of the firm Andreessen Horowitz, who purchased a $177 million Malibu home with a private cinema and spa from fashion designer Serge Azria.

No sprawling West Coast mansion, however, has topped the $238 million New York City penthouse purchased by billionaire hedge fund manager Ken Griffin in 2019. The three-floor trophy property is situated on Billionaire's Row at the south edge of Central Park and remains the most expensive real estate transaction in US history.

A French chateau owned by the Rothschild family is currently making a bid to beat them all as the most expensive real estate sale in the world, with a current asking price of $452 million, according to Architectural Digest. The historic home spans 100 rooms, 17 bedroom suites, and a 50-horse stable on a property dating back to the 12th century.

• Donald Sutherland wrote a letter to "Hunger Games" director Gary Ross to get the role of President Snow.
• The letter was made available to fans as part of the 2012 DVD release of the movie.
• Ross was inspired to create three pivotal Snow scenes after reading Sutherland's letter. Read it below.

Donald Sutherland, who died Thursday at 88, had a prolific career spanning decades.

Many younger fans might know him best as President Coriolanus Snow in "The Hunger Games" franchise, but not everyone might know he campaigned to get the role.

Lionsgate's successful franchise, based on Suzanne Collins's bestselling book series, pits hero Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) against Sutherland's villainous President Snow.

In 2014, ahead of the release of "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1," the penultimate film in the main series, Sutherland told GQ he was never actually offered the role of the film's callous, collected president. 

Instead, he received the part after reading the books and writing an impassioned three-page letter to Gary Ross, the director of the first movie, about the character.

Via GQ:

Nobody asked me to do it. I wasn't offered it. I like to read scripts, and it captured my passion. I wrote them a letter. The role of the president had maybe a line in the script. Maybe two. Didn't make any difference. I thought it was an incredibly important film, and I wanted to be a part of it. I thought it could wake up an electorate that had been dormant since the '70s. I hadn't read the books. To be truthful, I was unaware of them. But they showed my letter to the director, Gary Ross, and he thought it'd be a good idea if I did it. He wrote those wonderfully poetic scenes in the rose garden, and they formed the mind and wit of Coriolanus Snow.

The letter, written as an email, was made available for fans on the 2012 DVD release of "The Hunger Games" in a segment titled "Letters from the Rose Garden."

It included a discussion of power, Ted Bundy, and the elements of Snow that Sutherland considered most vital to the film. 

Because the novel is written from Katniss's first-person view, we don't see anything from Snow's perspective or his home, the Capitol. Sutherland pointed out that the film offered such an opportunity, and Ross agreed. 

Ross's response to the letter inspired three scenes of Snow in his rose gardens during the games.

"That's the relationship you want from an actor and director, where it's a give and take," Ross said on the DVD. "It's collaborative. It's one person offering something to the other who then takes it, extrapolates it, runs with it, gives it back to the actor who gives the scene back to me … that's the way filmmaking works best." 

Read Sutherland's letter to Ross in full below:  

Dear Gary Ross: 

Power. That's what this is about? Yes? Power and the forces that are manipulated by the powerful men and bureaucracies trying to maintain control and possession of that power? 

Power perpetrates war and oppression to maintain itself until it finally topples over with the bureaucratic weight of itself and sinks into the pages of history (except in Texas), leaving lessons that need to be learned unlearned.  

Power corrupts, and, in many cases, absolute power makes you really horny. Clinton, Chirac, Mao, Mitterrand. 

Not so, I think, with Coriolanus Snow. His obsession, his passion, is his rose garden. There's a rose named Sterling Silver that's lilac in colour with the most extraordinarily powerful fragrance — incredibly beautiful — I loved it in the seventies when it first appeared. They've made a lot of offshoots of it since then.  

I didn't want to write to you until I'd read the trilogy and now I have so: roses are of great importance. And Coriolanus's eyes. And his smile. Those three elements are vibrant and vital in Snow. Everything else is, by and large, perfectly still and ruthlessly contained. What delight she [Katniss] gives him. He knows her so perfectly. Nothing, absolutely nothing, surprises him. He sees and understands everything. He was, quite probably, a brilliant man who's succumbed to the siren song of power. 

How will you dramatize the interior narrative running in Katniss's head that describes and consistently updates her relationship with the President who is ubiquitous in her mind? With omniscient calm he knows her perfectly. She knows he does and she knows that he will go to any necessary end to maintain his power because she knows that he believes that she's a real threat to his fragile hold on his control of that power. She's more dangerous than Joan of Arc. 

Her interior dialogue/monologue defines Snow. It's that old theatrical turnip: you can't 'play' a king, you need everybody else on stage saying to each other, and therefore to the audience, stuff like "There goes the King, isn't he a piece of work, how evil, how lovely, how benevolent, how cruel, how brilliant he is!" The idea of him, the definition of him, the audience's perception of him, is primarily instilled by the observations of others and once that idea is set, the audience's view of the character is pretty much unyielding. And in Snow's case, that definition, of course, comes from Katniss. 

Evil looks like our understanding of the history of the men we're looking at. It's not what we see: it's what we've been led to believe. Simple as that. Look at the face of Ted Bundy before you knew what he did and after you knew.  

Snow doesn't look evil to the people in Panem's Capitol. Bundy didn't look evil to those girls. My wife and I were driving through Colorado when he escaped from jail there. The car radio's warning was constant. 'Don't pick up any young men. The escapee looks like the nicest young man imaginable'. Snow's evil shows up in the form of the complacently confident threat that's ever-present in his eyes. His resolute stillness. Have you seen a film I did years ago? 'The Eye of the Needle'. That fellow had some of what I'm looking for.

The woman who lived up the street from us in Brentwood came over to ask my wife a question when my wife was dropping the kids off at school. This woman and her husband had seen that movie the night before and what she wanted to know was how my wife could live with anyone who could play such an evil man. It made for an amusing dinner or two but part of my wife's still wondering.

I'd love to speak with you whenever you have a chance so I can be on the same page with you.

They all end up the same way. Welcome to Florida, have a nice day!

• Apple CEO Tim Cook  has been at the helm since 2011.
• Cook's tenure has produced valuable lessons that managers and execs can use to improve.
• He's taken Apple to new heights by asking questions, sticking to his values, and more.

Tim Cook has been Apple's CEO since 2011, and he's led the tech giant to major milestones and through tough times.

An Alabama native, Cook is known for his mild manners and relatively private life outside work, but he's maintained his leadership position at Apple for 13 years and become an iconic name.

It hasn't been easy. Apple has faced increasing competition in recent years and, mostly recently, European Union fines and an ongoing antitrust lawsuit from the Department of Justice.

Still, Cook has seen the company through major releases such as the Vision Pro headset and the launch of Apple Intelligence this year alone.

Here are five things managers and CEOs can do to run their companies like the 63-year-old Apple chief.

Lead with your values

When Cook addressed the graduating class of Gallaudet University in 2022, he gave them a key piece of career advice.

"I have one important piece of advice I want to share, so important that it's the only piece of advice I'm going to share today. And that is this: Whatever you do, lead with your values," he told students during his commencement speech.

Cook continued, "By leading with your values, what I mean is that you should make decisions big and small, each and every day, based on a deep understanding of who you are and what you believe."

Know the difference between prepared and ready

In another commencement speech — this time to students at Stanford University — Cook spoke about taking over at Apple after its cofounder Steve Jobs took medical leave and later died in 2011.

He said he "learned the real, visceral difference between preparation and readiness" when Jobs was "truly gone" and added that it was a lonely time for him.

"Your mentors may leave you prepared, but they can't leave you ready."

Ask questions

Cook is known for putting his employees in the hot seat.

In the book "Tim Cook: The Genius Who Took Apple to the Next Level" by Leander Kahney, it's said that asking employees questions is a management tactic Cook uses often.

Kahney wrote that Cook could "wear people down through an endless barrage of questions." According to the book, the Apple CEO did this to ensure workers had a deep understanding of whatever they were tasked with doing.

"He's a very quiet leader," Greg Joswiak, Apple's senior vice president of worldwide marketing, told Kahney, according to the book. "Not a screamer, not a yeller," he said, adding: "He's just very calm, steady, but will slice you up with questions. You better know your stuff."

Don't worry about a "legacy"

Although Cook hasn't offered this as advice, his opinion on legacies seems to differ from that of other high-powered CEOs.

In a 2024 interview with the tech YouTuber Marques Brownlee, Cook said he hadn't thought much about his legacy because it's "something that is defined by other people."

He's also made peace with the inevitable end of his tenure as the head of Apple and the beginning of another CEO's legacy.

"At some point, there will be another CEO," Cook said. "And my whole focus in life will be on making them successful."

Keep your finger on the pulse

Cook has said he spends each morning reading hundreds of employee and customer feedback emails to learn more about how Apple can improve.

For him, it's a way to "stay grounded in terms of what the community is feeling," he told the singer Dua Lipa in November. In past interviews, Cook has said he receives about 800 emails daily and reads most of them.

"I read emails from a lot of customers and employees, and the customers are telling me things that they love about us or things that they want changed about us," he said. "Employees are giving me ideas."

• Ukraine has used naval drones and missiles to wage war against Russia's Black Sea Fleet.
• A campaign of highly effective strikes has pushed Moscow to relocate many of its vulnerable assets.
• Satellite imagery captures the exodus of Russian naval assets from Crimea to other ports.

Armed with exploding naval drones and long-range missiles, Ukraine has managed to push Russia's Black Sea Fleet away from its long-held headquarters in the occupied Crimean peninsula to other bases far away.

A series of high-profile Ukrainian attacks on the port of Sevastopol and Russian warships last year trigged the withdrawal of Russian warships to bases in the port cities of Feodosia, on the other side of Crimea, and Novorossiysk, in Russia, as Moscow sought better protection for its naval assets.

Newly released satellite imagery captured by BlackSky, a real-time, space-based intelligence company, and obtained by Business Insider reveals the dispersal of the Black Sea Fleet — one of Ukraine's defining successes of the war. Kyiv, lacking a proper navy of its own, has inflicted shocking losses on Russian warships and, in the process, opened up a crucial maritime corridor to help support its economy.

Ukraine has relied on its fleet of homemade naval drones and missiles to sink, destroy, or damage at least 24 Russian vessels in the Black Sea, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said last week.

These attacks span the entirety of the war, but the exodus of the Black Sea Fleet didn't really kick into gear until September 2023. That month, Ukraine carried out two separate attacks on Sevastopol using Western-made cruise missiles to bombard a key shipyard and the fleet's headquarters.

The British defense ministry noted in October that the increasing threats to Sevastopol — as evidenced by the earlier strikes on the shipyard and headquarters — were likely forcing Moscow to disperse its naval operations across the Black Sea and away from Crimea's battered western coast.

BlackSky said it generated tens of thousands of automated detections of military vessels between January 2022 and April 2024, giving it insight into the scale of the Russian withdrawal.

In the months after the Sevastopol strikes, BlackSky found that there was an 18% drop in detections in the port.

Meanwhile, it recorded a 23% increase in detections in Feodosia and a 22% increase in detections in Novorossiysk — just shy of 100 miles and just over 200 miles away from Sevastopol, respectively. These figures underscore a noteworthy departure away from western Crimea to other locations that may be harder for Ukrainian missiles and drones to reach.

A series of satellite images captured in the months before and after the damaging Sevastopol strikes further highlights the Black Sea Fleet's dwindling presence at the city's port, as warships were distributed across the region to Feodosia and Novorossiysk.

BlackSky also said it observed an increase in apparent maritime security measures at the entrances to the ports where Russian vessels were docked, including at Sevastopol despite the decrease in naval activity there. Western intelligence and analysts have identified these defenses as netting, floating booms, and moored barges.

With a diminished presence of Russian warships around Sevastopol and Crimea's western coast, Ukraine in recent weeks has resorted to attacks on smaller vessels like patrol vessels and tugboats in a bid to continue inflicting naval losses on Moscow.

The Black Sea fight has been a bright spot for Ukraine amid the slow-moving campaign on the ground. Russia has been unable to consistently defend against this innovative and asymmetrical style of warfare, and officials in Kyiv have vowed to press on with this highly effective campaign of missile and naval drone attacks.

A general in the Security Service of Ukraine, which has carried out naval drone attacks on Russian warships and infrastructure, previously told BI that Kyiv is not only driving Moscow's naval assets away, but it is also destroying them in the process — highlighting some of the strategic benefits of the campaign.

"We managed to unblock the grain corridor and suppress the activity of Russian missile launchers firing from the sea at the territory of Ukraine," said Brig. Gen. Ivan Lukashevych. "Forcing the enemy to flee from the Black Sea was the goal we sought," he added, "and it was achieved."

• A reporter found documents that appear to show details of Ted Cruz's donor meetings.
• They show how rich donors can get serious face time with influential lawmakers.
• It's not just Cruz — lots of politicians in both parties do this.

On Tuesday, reporter Pablo Manríquez discovered a collection of documents that appear to belong to Sen. Ted Cruz's campaign.

The documents, discovered in a food kiosk on the first floor of the US Capitol, appear to include information about a series of meetings between the Texas Republican and campaign donors.

The details of those meetings — including the requests Cruz is expected to make of donors, the amount of time each donor gets with the senator, and a curious reference to "outside efforts" — offer a rare window into how money in politics really works in America.

That's true not just for Cruz — a 2016 presidential candidate who faces a competitive reelection fight against Democratic Rep. Colin Allred this fall — but for many American politicians in both parties who rely on big donors.

Spokespeople for Cruz did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The details of the documents

The documents included information about several mid-week meetings, the first of which was a dinner with eight lobbyists and PAC officials at the Capital Grille in Washington, DC.

Each individual at the dinner had pledged between $1,000 and $2,500 to Cruz's campaign, according to the documents. The Texas senator's briefing materials included professional biographies of each person, along with a bold-face description of which special interest they represented.

On Wednesday, Cruz appeared to have six meetings with major donors in New York City — like many Americans, senators got the day off for Juneteenth.

For each of those New York meetings, Cruz was supplied with detailed biographies of his interlocutors, a list of their recent political contributions, and directions on how much money to ask for.

One GOP operative who's managed several outside groups in Senate races, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said there was "nothing out of the ordinary" with the documents.

"It's obviously embarrassing to have it out there, because your donors trust you to be responsible with their information," the operative quipped.

Donors get a lot of access in exchange for money

We all probably know it, but it's striking to see on paper: Money can buy you access.

For the price of as low as $1,000, you and seven other people can have dinner with Cruz on a weekday night, just a stone's throw from the Capitol.

Cruz is the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, which deals with transportation and telecommunications issues, among other things. Sure enough, several of the attendees are from groups that have financial interests in those fields, including the telecommunications firm Ericsson and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.

There's no guarantee that the Texas senator will do your bidding just because you gave him a couple of thousand dollars, but he may be more sympathetic to your viewpoint if you're given the time to offer it over drinks and some steak.

Meanwhile, Cruz's Wednesday in New York was stacked — 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. — with more intimate, one-on-one meetings with megadonors, offering a look at just how much time fundraising can take.

Those meetings, held in wealthy donors' homes or other glamorous Manhattan restaurants, each lasted between 45 minutes and two hours.

On paper, donations are capped at $6,600. In reality, you can go way higher than that.

Under federal campaign finance law, there are fairly tight limits on how much money individuals are allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

The idea is to limit the degree of influence that one person can have over a candidate: The more a politician owes a single person for campaign contributions, the more indebted they are.

This year, it's $6,600 — $3,300 for the primary and $3,300 for the general election.

But in practice, that number can go way higher, as the documents show. For some meetings, Cruz is directed to ask a single donor whether they will contribute $119,200 to his race.

As Saurav Ghosh, the director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center, noted on X, that's because it's really a donation to several different groups working to reelect Cruz, including his own campaign, his "leadership PAC," the Texas GOP, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Also, if your spouse donates too, you can double that sum.

Candidates can't legally coordinate with super PACS — but they can get kind of close

Perhaps the most eyebrow-raising portion of the documents is a line included in briefing materials for several of the New York megadonor meetings: "Ask [donor] to talk to your team about outside efforts."

In this case, the phrase "outside efforts" likely refers to super PACs, which can accept unlimited donations but are legally barred from coordinating with or donating directly to politicians' campaigns.

Cruz is already in some hot water for a financial arrangement between his podcast and his super PAC. But the GOP operative who's worked on outside groups before says the arrangement is likely squarely within the bounds of the law.

"Candidates are prohibited from soliciting contributions. Candidates are not prohibited from teeing up conversations," the operative said. "The critical thing is: No explicit ask, and no explicit dollar amounts being discussed."

Ghosh, the campaign finance expert, made a similar point.

"Ask [donor] to talk to your team about outside efforts" isn't a 'solicitation' under federal campaign finance law," Ghosh wrote on X.

• Re-wearing outfits is popular at red-carpet events and in everyday life.
• Christian Siriano wants people to embrace repeating outfits they love.
• He recommends accessorizing and styling looks differently and disregarding fashion "rules."

It's official: Re-wearing outfits is in.

While "outfit repeater" was once an insult hurled at Hilary Duff's character on Disney Channel's "Lizzie McGuire," re-wearing items of clothing has even become a red-carpet trend with celebrities including Emma Stone, Cate Blanchett, and even Kate Middleton recycling their looks from years past.

Just ask Christian Siriano, who's dressed numerous celebrities for red-carpet occasions. The 38-year-old designer and past "Project Runway" winner is gearing up to host a Wardrobe Refresh Hotline event on TikTok Live as part of his partnership with Persil laundry detergent. Beginning June 26 at 6 p.m., Siriano will take live questions on Persil's TikTok account about re-styling outfits and maintaining the quality of beloved pieces.

"I love the idea that if you have something that you love or loved before, why are you not recycling your wardrobe?" Siriano told Business Insider. "Even actresses are saying now, 'It's OK to re-wear things, even on the red carpet,' so if you're just in your day-to-day life, why not?"

Siriano attributes the popularity of repeating outfits to efforts to curb overconsumption, hearkening back to a time when people had smaller wardrobes comprised of quality items that would last.

"I make clothes that are special and unique. So yeah, you're not going to wear this every day," he said as he gestured to a sparkly pink tulle piece behind him, "but I don't want you to not wear it ever again. I want you to be able to wear your special Christian Siriano gown to other things throughout your life."

Rewearing looks can also be a status symbol if the item is no longer available, Siriano said.

"I think it's kind of cool if you're with your friends and you're all hanging out and everyone's like, 'Oh my God, I love that jacket,' and you're like, 'Oh yeah, I bought it at a vintage store 10 years ago and I love it,' and people are jealous because they can't get it," he said.

Here are some of Siriano's top tips for repeating outfits with style.

Use accessories to change up an old outfit

Accessories can help breathe new life into an outfit that has been worn again and again.

"The idea here is, how do you make it new and fresh and feel different?" Siriano said. "I think that it's all about your confidence and how you can put a look together. So it's your bag, it's your shoes, it's accessories, hair and makeup."

Style the look — don't just wear it

Re-wearing a piece of clothing doesn't have to mean wearing it exactly the same way as last time.

"If you bought a beautiful blazer that you used to wear to work every single day, maybe you should wear it when you go out to dinner, and belt it and make it a dress," he said.

Forget the fashion 'rules'

Wearing an outfit again doesn't have to be a complicated decision. If you like it, wear it, regardless of what you perceive the rules or etiquette to be.

"It shouldn't be so scary like, 'Oh my god, can I wear this dress? I wore it last week,' Siriano said. "Yes, of course you can."

• "Bridgerton" star Luke Newton said the cast shares tips on surviving the spotlight each season.
• "We've now agreed that everything that goes from sibling to sibling is top secret," Newton said.
• Newton said he'll pass on his knowledge to whichever costar becomes the main character in season four.

The cast of "Bridgerton" is so tight-knit that they share confidential tips on how to survive the spotlight each season.

"We always talked about there being a book passed down through Bridgerton siblings," Luke Newton, who stars as Colin Bridgerton, said during an appearance on "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon" on Wednesday. "And it never actually happened. It was all just through voice notes."

Netflix's TV show adaptation of Julia Quinn's book series focuses on the intertwined lives of eight Bridergton siblings. Like the novels, each season centers on a different sibling's love story.

Season one followed Daphne Bridgerton (Phoebe Dynevor) and Simon Basset (Regé-Jean Page) and season two focused on Anthony Bridgerton (Jonathan Bailey) and Kate Sharma (Simone Ashley). Season three, which recently concluded, showed Colin and Penelope Featherington's (Nicola Coughlan) friends-to-lovers romance.

During an appearance on the "Tonight Show" in May, Bailey spoke about each season's leads experiencing a new level of popularity, and the importance of staying grounded throughout the experience.

When it came to passing the torch to Newton for season three, Bailey said that his costar "didn't really need any advice, but I've been there on WhatsApp."

"And I will be for the siblings because we are bonded by this extraordinary thing," Bailey said.

Newton confirmed to Fallon that Bailey made himself available to share words of wisdom despite being busy juggling multiple TV and film projects. Season four is already in the works, but the leading Bridgerton sibling has yet to be officially announced.

"We've now agreed that everything that goes from sibling to sibling is top secret," Newton said. "It's like a Bridgerton secret. So now I will pass on to whoever the next sibling is going to be the secret code of how to survive it."

• Many Costco employees have stayed on and built long careers at the retailer.
• A manager who has been with the company over 20 years shared his best tip for getting promoted.
• "Move to some of the areas where they're growing," he told Business Insider.

Costco is a relatively uncommon employer in the retail industry in that many of its workers have started in entry-level positions and built decadeslong careers with the company.

Most notably, CEO Ron Vachris' first job was as a forklift driver 40 years ago.

So how do you get ahead?

Business Insider spoke with a manager who joined the company more than 20 years ago slinging hot dogs in the warehouse food court to make money for college.

He has since worked in multiple states and held a variety of positions, and he shared his best tip for advancing a warehouse career. BI has verified his identity but is not naming him as he is not authorized to speak to the media.

"If you seriously want to get promoted and want to grow in the company, move to some of the areas where they're growing into," he said, highlighting Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arkansas in particular. "They have a really difficult time getting people to move there."

The company has just eight locations across those three states — less than half of what it has in New York alone. In addition to a new location slated to open in Louisiana in August, new warehouses are currently in the works for Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Washington, and California.

The manager said he knew one colleague who joined the company four years ago and took the opportunity to move to Oklahoma after just a year on the job.

"She's already an assistant warehouse manager," he said.

He added that her rise was likely based not just on her qualifications for the job, but also her willingness to go "where nobody wants to live."

"She ended up getting promoted a lot quicker than most anyone I've ever heard of," he said.

Historically, Costco has added around two dozen new US locations per year, and more recently execs have discussed locating new openings closer together in order to alleviate the pressure on popular warehouses dealing with long lines and crowded parking lots.

As a company, Costco has shown a distinct preference for internal hires — most of the C-suite is made up of longtime insiders — and existing warehouses are typically tapped for talent to make sure new locations have enough experience in the building to operate successfully.

"It's very, very rare that they hire a supervisor or a manager in a warehouse off the street," the manager told BI.