Author: openjargon

• Dick Van Dyke celebrated his 100th birthday on Saturday.
• The Hollywood titan has shared his tips for living a long, healthy life.
• In his new book, Van Dyke said he "stubbornly refused to give in to the bad stuff in life."

Dick Van Dyke, the larger-than-life comedian, is now a centenarian.

Van Dyke celebrated his 100th birthday on Saturday, marking a new chapter in his already storied life and career.

He became a household name in the 1960s while starring on the CBS sitcom, "The Dick Van Dyke Show," which won 15 Emmys and two Golden Globes. Van Dyke's star rose even higher when he headlined "Mary Poppins" alongside Julie Andrews in 1964 and "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" with Sally Ann Howes in 1968.

In addition to an extensive filmography, Van Dyke also won a Tony Award in 1961 for his role as Albert Peterson in "Bye Bye Birdie."

As Van Dyke grew older, he has often shared insights and advice on living a long life. Here are three tips Van Dyke follows.

Van Dyke exercises three times a week

During an appearance on actor Ted Danson's podcast, "Where Everybody Knows Your Name," in January, Van Dyke said he exercises several times a week.

"I've always exercised," Van Dyke said. "Three days a week, we go to the gym. I think that's why I'm not stove-up like my equals."

Danson recalled seeing Van Dyke at the gym and being impressed by his routine.

"I would go to the same gym you did, and if I got there early enough, I would see you, literally, work out on some weight machine," Danson said. "And then, almost like you were doing circuit training, you would not walk to the next machine, you'd dance. You literally danced to the next machine."

Danson said he later asked Van Dyke about his workout routine.

"You said you would come to the gym and work out for whatever hour, whatever it is, then you would go home. You would swim laps and then get back into bed and take a nap."

Van Dyke said these days, he's doing a lot of stretching and yoga.

Van Dyke stays mentally fit by watching "Jeopardy!"

In his new book, "100 Rules for Living to 100: An Optimist's Guide to a Happy Life," Van Dyke wrote that his short-term memory is "shot," but he still has "his marbles."

"I used to do the crossword religiously for years (in pen), and now it's 'Jeopardy!' that keeps me sharp, though Arlene always has the answer before I do," Van Dyke wrote, referring to his wife, Arlene Silver.

Van Dyke and Silver, 54, tied the knot in 2012. In his book, Van Dyke wrote that his job as an entertainer required him to have a good memory.

"For my whole career, I had to memorize pages and pages of lines and a ton of songs, backward and forward, so I was able to say or sing them without even thinking," he wrote. "When I sing with The Vantastix, it's often songs from shows and movies I've done, and those are right at the front of my brain."

He added: "I can still pick up new material easily, too, though it might take three or four more run-throughs than it used to be before the lyrics feel like second nature."

Van Dyke also wrote that cutting alcohol out of his diet likely played a part in his good brain health.

Keeping a positive mindset is essential, Van Dyke said

In his book, Van Dyke recalled his former roles, including a series of old men, like Mr. Dawes Sr. in "Mary Poppins."

"I'm not playing super-old anymore. I am super old. Speaking now from this position of centenarian authenticity, I can look back on my old man roles and say that some stuff I got right," he wrote.

Van Dyke wrote that it's "frustrating to feel diminished in the world, physically and socially," in addition to navigating the uncertainty of current global events.

However, Van Dyke said keeping a positive outlook on life is key.

"I've made it to one hundred, in no small part, because I have stubbornly refused to give in to the bad stuff in life: failure and defeats, personal losses, loneliness and bitterness, the physical and emotional pains of aging. Because, as I see it, to do that would be to throw in the towel on life itself."

Instead, Van Dyke said, "for the vast majority of my years, I have been in what I can only describe as a full-on bear hug with the experience of living. Being alive has been doing life — not like a job, but rather like a giant playground."

• Over the last 20 years, I've learned I can't have a one-size-fits-all approach to parenting.
• Fair parenting means responding to individual differences, not treating every child the same way.
• Recognizing and honoring each child's temperament helps them thrive and feel supported.

For years, the soundtrack of my household has included some version of: "But why doesn't she have to do that?" or "You never punish him!" Every time I heard it, I'd get that familiar pang of mother guilt.

Had I gotten lazy? Did I care less about what one did over the other? Was I a terrible parent for being too strict with one and not strict enough with another? Did I, in fact, have a favorite child?

Now, nearly 21 years and three kids into motherhood, I finally understand that while yes, I was slightly less anxious as each kid joined our family, it wasn't so much that my parenting style was changing. It was that each of my kids needed to be parented differently, and I had been doing it all along without even realizing it.

Parenting isn't one-size-fits-all

My oldest made this realization the easiest. He genuinely values my advice and still calls me from college to ask for my thoughts on something before he makes a decision. He shares his fears, anxieties, and illness symptoms with me on the regular. But once we talk it through, he almost always goes off and figures things out for himself. With him, parenting is often about stepping back. He wants a sounding board, not a manager, and knowing he'll take the baton and run reassures me that with him, my job is to guide, not direct.

My middle child is the opposite. Being her parent activates a very specific reflex in me — the instinct to swoop in and take care of it all. She's the kid I want to protect from anything uncomfortable, the one I have to force myself to let wobble so she can learn to balance. She is smart, capable, and resourceful, but she processes her uncertainty through emotion and anxiety, and when I sense her panic, my impulse is to jump in and fix it. The hardest thing I've had to learn is that helping my daughter means not doing things for her but offering solutions while giving her the tools to manage them for herself.

And then there's my youngest, who behaves as if he's been fiercely independent since birth. He likes to wave off my involvement and gets irritated if I so much as offer to set an alarm to wake him for school, ask if he's done his homework, or attempt to do his laundry for him. He doesn't want to be micromanaged, but likes to know that I am always close by, waiting quietly in the wings for those moments when it's all just too much, and he wants me to step in. With him, there's less heavy lifting and more just being there to catch him when he's falling.

I spent years thinking "fair" meant "the same" — I don't believe that anymore

For so long, I assumed parenting was something that should feel uniform, a philosophy you carry from one child to the next, maybe tweaking for age but not for temperament. All the while, I was unintentionally adjusting my parenting for each kid, while beating myself up for treating them differently. At some point, I internalized (or let my kids convince me) that "fair" meant "the same." But the older my kids get, the clearer it becomes that what one kid experiences as support, another might experience as pressure. What one sees as freedom, another might interpret as abandonment.

And while the soundtrack remains the same: "She's your favorite!" "Why do you let him get away with that?!" I stopped asking myself whether I was getting too lenient or too strict. I started asking a better question: What does this child need from me right now — not what did their sibling need at this age, not what I think I'm supposed to do, or how their sibling wishes I would handle it, but what actually helps this particular kid thrive. I no longer measure my consistency by how similarly I treat my kids, but by how attuned I am to each of them as individuals.

In the end, the thing my children have taught me, each in their own way, is that my job isn't to parent them the same way three times. It's to parent three different children in ways that help them become who they're meant to be based on who they are now.

• My dad died unexpectedly of a heart attack.
• We didn't know what arrangements to make after his passing because we hadn't talked about it.
• I didn't want the same experience for my son, so I'm planning while I'm healthy.

Sitting across from the funeral director, I held my husband's hand. I needed to feel something real while my body moved between sadness and shock. I glanced at my mom to steady her and at my husband for support. There was one person noticeably missing from our group: my dad.

The day before, I wouldn't have guessed I'd be spending my afternoon at a funeral home. I had talked to my dad that night and made plans for our weekly dinner. When I hung up the phone, I had no clue that was the last time I'd speak to him. There was no inner hunch that doom was on the horizon, and nothing that said he wasn't feeling well. So, the next morning, when the ER doctor told my mom, husband, and me that they tried to revive him and failed — I didn't know how to process the information. Dying of a heart attack made no sense. I thought we had plenty of time.

Throughout my life, we had relied on him to answer the hard questions, and we desperately needed him now. It had only been three hours since his unexpected passing, and here we were planning his funeral. I had no idea what he wanted.

He was healthy and active

I recall sitting at my parents' dinner table with my then-9-year-old son. He drank his milk while my dad gestured to the desk behind him. The white stack of papers (the size of a small novel) stood out against the stack of magazines. "Do you want to read my will?" my dad asked with a wink.

I paused.

Not really what I'd call an uplifting dinnertime read. At 71 years young, he was active and in good shape — a recent retiree ready to travel and spend time with his grandkids. I didn't want to think about his potential decline — my dad was invincible.

He never caught the colds and stomach flus I brought home from school. He rarely missed work, and I figured I wouldn't have to deal with this anytime soon. My grandparents lived well into their 80s — my great-grandmother until 100. I did the quick math — that was at least another 10 years or more.

I politely declined the read, telling him there'd be plenty of time to cover that another day. "That's all right," he began with a smirk," I fell asleep when I tried to proofread it." And that was that. There was no talk of caskets or whether he preferred The Beatles or the Rolling Stones to be played at his funeral.

No reason to discuss his death when he was so full of life. That night, we finished our hamburgers, and his will stayed on the desk, gathering dust, for the next year. And then time ran out.

Not knowing what my father wanted made it hard to grieve

This memory ran through my mind as I tried to answer the questions the funeral director asked. It was hard to concentrate with this huge lump in my stomach. Mostly, I wanted to cry and run away. Even hiding under the covers right now sounded like a good option.

I concentrated on the warmth of my husband's hand and answered some basic questions, such as where my dad was born and his age. I failed when asked for his Social Security number. My mom tried to take over, but she was so distressed that her answers were slow and hard to access. I wanted to talk to my dad. I wish I had. This would be so much easier.

Looking at my husband, I immediately thought about my son sitting in a similar seat for us. My shoulders tensed. My tears started again, but this time because I imagined an older version of my kid stumbling through unknown answers with no space to feel his feelings. I did not want this overwhelming ordeal for him. If I could make it easier or eliminate this step completely, I would.

My husband and I made plans so my son doesn't have to

Later that night, when my husband and I had a quiet moment alone, I told him I wanted to write out our death details for our son. He looked surprised and whispered, "We have plenty of time." I'm sure that was meant to reassure me, but it was exactly what I said to my dad not that long ago. My mom heart would do anything to protect our son's space to grieve. I wanted cozy childhood memories to comfort him when one of us couldn't — not images of his mom or dad in a casket.

A few weeks later, as I processed my dad's passing, my husband and I talked about our own. We created a checklist of what we wanted, including which funeral home and cemetery to contact. My husband and I added doodles and love notes to the list and made sure our will was in order, too. Instead of freaking my 9-year-old with more morbid information, we told trusted family members where to find all the papers. Fingers crossed, it will sit in my desk drawer gathering dust for many more years to come.

• I experienced sticker shock when I visited a nursery to buy a holiday tree this year.
• A 10-foot tree would have cost me $370 if I'd gone ahead and bought it.
• I remembered being happy as a child in the 1970s with a 4-foot Charlie Brown-style Christmas tree.

It's traditional for our family to go Christmas tree shopping together, even though my kids are now 15 and 17 and practically leading their own lives.

This year was no exception. We found a brief window between my daughter's clock-in time for her part-time job at a gift store and my son's dentist appointment.

In previous years, we had invariably bought a tree from a Vermonter who set up camp in the parking lot of our local church.

When we lived in New York City before our children arrived, my husband and I would buy one from a friendly sidewalk vendor with a truck full of fir trees.

We decided to visit a nursery to purchase our Christmas tree

There was something magical about picking it out, throwing it over your shoulder, and bringing it up to your apartment, despite the pine needles that dropped in the elevator.

Still, as an immigrant from the UK, where people literally drag them home or transport them in the back of their vehicle, I still get a kick from seeing cars on the road with a tree strapped to the roof.

The guy from Vermont had failed to make the journey to our suburb for some reason this year. We chose to visit a nursery based on a friend's recommendation.

It was packed, but there were scores of trees remaining tethered to poles.

Since it's my daughter's last Christmas before she heads off to college, we decided to make it extra special by getting a taller tree than usual.

The price of the tree was off the charts

She got first dibs on choosing, and after browsing the 9-foot and 10-foot sections, settled on the third one she saw.

I strolled off to look at some garlands, only to see my husband frantically waving his arms at me. "Get back in the car," he mouthed, not wanting anyone to hear.

It turned out the tree that our daughter selected cost $370 — the equivalent of $37 a foot. I gasped in shock. I knew we lived in one of the most expensive counties in New York — if not the US — but the price was off the charts.

There was no way I was going to pay close to $400 for something that would grace our living room for less than a month. Even the kids acknowledged that it wasn't worth the cash.

My childhood Christmas tree was recycled each year from the garden

The experience prompted me to reflect on my childhood in northeast England during the 1970s. A distant memory stirred in my mind.

I recalled how, several Decembers in a row, my dad dug up a 4-foot fir— for some reason nicknamed George — which was growing in our front garden.

George was so small and sparse, he could have belonged to Charlie Brown. But he'd replant him in a pot, and my sister, Alison, and I would decorate him with lights, tinsel, and ornaments.

Then, at the beginning of January, Dad would put him back in the ground until the end of that year. I suppose we were a green family, long before it became a thing.

I mentioned our search for a more affordable tree to my sister

George was unearthed one year too many and then died. It was a sad day. We had always been thrilled to watch George enter and exit the house every Christmas.

After the sticker shock over the $370 tree, I considered telling my kids that we would plant another George. But we ended up buying another 10-footer for just over $200 from a roadside stand.

I mentioned our search for a more affordable tree to Ali. We reminisced about George. Two days later, she sent me a black-and-white photo from 1976 over WhatsApp.

She'd found a picture of 8-year-old me standing in our yard next to George. My mom had kept it at the bottom of a drawer all these years.

• Elon Musk and Sam Altman cofounded OpenAI years ago, but they're often at odds today.
• Musk left OpenAI in 2018 and now heads rival xAI.
• Here's a history of Musk and Altman's working relationship and feuds.

Elon Musk and Sam Altman lead rival AI firms and regularly take public jabs at each other — but it wasn't always like this.

Years ago, the two cofounded OpenAI, which Altman now leads. Musk departed OpenAI, which created ChatGPT, in 2018, and has since launched his own AI venture, xAI.

Their latest point of contention seems to change by the week, with Altman explaining how his view of Musk has changed over the years.

"For a long time, I looked up to him as an incredible hero, a great jewel for humanity. I have different feelings now," Altman said of Musk in a September 10 interview with former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson.

Here's a look at Musk and Altman's complicated relationship over the years:

Musk and Altman cofounded OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, in 2015, alongside other Silicon Valley figures.

The group aimed to create a nonprofit focused on developing artificial intelligence "in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole," according to a statement on OpenAI's website from December 11, 2015.

At the time, Musk said that AI was the "biggest existential threat" to humanity.

"It's hard to fathom how much human-level AI could benefit society, and it's equally hard to imagine how much it could damage society if built or used incorrectly," a statement announcing the founding of OpenAI reads.

Musk stepped down from OpenAI's board of directors in 2018.

"As Tesla continues to become more focused on AI, this will eliminate a potential future conflict for Elon," OpenAI said in a blog post at the time, adding that Musk would continue to provide guidance and donations.

With his departure, Musk also backed out of a commitment to provide additional funding to OpenAI, a person involved in the matter told The New Yorker.

"It was very tough," Altman told the magazine about the situation. "I had to reorient a lot of my life and time to make sure we had enough funding."

Altman and other OpenAI cofounders had rejected Musk's proposal to run the company in 2018.

Semafor reported in 2023 that Musk wanted to run the company on his own in an attempt to beat Google. But when his offer to run the company was rejected, he pulled his funding and left OpenAI's board, the news outlet said.

In 2019, Musk shared some insight on his decision to leave, saying one of the reasons was that he "didn't agree" with where OpenAI was headed.

"I had to focus on solving a painfully large number of engineering & manufacturing problems at Tesla (especially) & SpaceX," he tweeted. "Also, Tesla was competing for some of same people as OpenAI & I didn't agree with some of what OpenAI team wanted to do. Add that all up & it was just better to part ways on good terms."

Musk has taken shots at OpenAI since he left.

Two years after his departure, Musk said, "OpenAI should be more open" in response to an MIT Technology Review article that reported there was a culture of secrecy at the organization, despite OpenAI frequently proclaiming a commitment to transparency.

Musk also said that his "confidence in Dario for safety is not high," referring to Dario Amodei, who led OpenAI's strategy at the time. Amodei is now the CEO of Anthropic, another leading AI startup.

Musk said he was pausing OpenAI's ability to train ChatGPT on the X database.

"Need to understand more about governance structure & revenue plans going forward. OpenAI was started as open-source & non-profit. Neither are still true," he said.

Musk was reportedly furious about ChatGPT's success, Semafor reported in 2023.

In November 2022, the chatbot took off, garnering millions of users for its ability to do everything from writing essays to crafting basic code. 

In February 2023, Musk doubled down, saying OpenAI is "not what I intended at all."

"OpenAI was created as an open source (which is why I named it "Open" AI), non-profit company to serve as a counterweight to Google, but now it has become a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft. Not what I intended at all," he said in a tweet.

Musk repeated this assertion a month later.

"I'm still confused as to how a non-profit to which I donated ~$100M somehow became a $30B market cap for-profit. If this is legal, why doesn't everyone do it?" he tweeted.

Musk was one of more than 1,000 people who signed an open letter calling for a 6-month pause on training advanced AI systems.

The March 2023 letter, which also received signatures from several AI experts, cited concerns about the potential risks AI poses to humanity.

"Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable," the letter says.

But while he was publicly calling for the pause, Musk was quietly building his own AI competitor, xAI, The New Yorker reported in 2023. He launched the company in March 2023.

Altman has addressed some of Musk's gripes about OpenAI.

"To say a positive thing about Elon, I think he really does care about a good future with AGI," Altman said in 2023 on an episode of the "On With Kara Swisher" podcast, referring to artificial general intelligence.

"I mean, he's a jerk, whatever else you want to say about him — he has a style that is not a style that I'd want to have for myself," Altman told Swisher. "But I think he does really care, and he is feeling very stressed about what the future's going to look like for humanity." 

In response to Musk's claim that OpenAI has turned into "a closed source, maximum-profit company effectively controlled by Microsoft," Altman said on the podcast, "Most of that is not true, and I think Elon knows that."

Altman has also referred to Musk as one of his heroes.

In a March 2023 episode of Lex Fridman's podcast, Altman also said, "Elon is obviously attacking us some on Twitter right now on a few different vectors."

Nonetheless, he called Musk one of his heroes, adding, "I believe he is, understandably so, really stressed about AGI safety."

In a May 2023 talk at University College London, Altman was asked what he's learned from various mentors, Fortune reported. He answered by speaking about Musk.

"Certainly learning from Elon about what is just, like, possible to do and that you don't need to accept that, like, hard R&D and hard technology is not something you ignore, that's been super valuable," he said.

Musk briefly unfollowed Altman on X; Altman later poked fun at Musk's claim to be a 'free speech absolutist.'

Twitter took aim at posts linking to rival Substack in 2023, forbidding users from retweeting or replying to tweets containing such links, before reversing course. In response to a tweet about the situation, Altman tweeted, "Free speech absolutism on STEROIDS."

Musk has called himself a "free speech absolutist" before and said it's one of the reasons he bought Twitter, now X.

Altman joked that he'd watch Musk and Mark Zuckerberg's rumored cage fight.

"I would go watch if he and Zuck actually did that," he said at the Bloomberg Technology Summit in June 2023, though he said he doesn't think he would ever challenge Musk in a physical fight.

Altman also repeated several of his previous remarks about Musk's position on AI.

"He really cares about AI safety a lot," Altman said at Bloomberg's summit. "We have differences of opinion on some parts, but we both care about that and he wants to make sure we, the world, have the maximal chance at a good outcome."

Separately, Altman told The New Yorker in August 2023 that Musk has a my-way-or-the-highway approach to issues more broadly.

"Elon desperately wants the world to be saved. But only if he can be the one to save it," Altman said.

 

Musk first sued Altman and OpenAI in March 2024.

Musk sued OpenAI, Altman, and cofounder Greg Brockman in March 2024, alleging the company's direction in recent years had violated its founding principles.

Musk's lawyers alleged OpenAI "has been transformed into a closed-source de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world" and is "refining an AGI to maximize profits for Microsoft, rather than for the benefit of humanity."

In response, OpenAI published a series of emails that appeared to show Musk saying he'd agree to the company's for-profit shift and that OpenAI should "attach to Tesla as its cash cow."

OpenAI also called the lawsuit "incoherent" and "contradictory," suggesting Musk was jealous of the company's success without him.

A few months later, Musk withdrew the lawsuit, a day before a judge was set to consider the case's future in a hearing.

Musk sued OpenAI again in August 2024, this time saying he was "deceived" into cofounding the company.

Musk filed a new lawsuit in August 2024 against Altman and Brockman.

The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI executives played on Musk's concerns about the existential risks of AI and "assiduously manipulated" him into cofounding the company as a nonprofit. The company's intent was to focus on building AI safely in an open approach to benefit humanity, the lawsuit says.

OpenAI has since adopted a structure featuring a nonprofit parent company and a for-profit subsidiary. It responded to the lawsuit by stating that "Elon's prior emails continue to speak for themselves."

Musk says OpenAI and Microsoft are a monopoly.

In November 2024, Musk amended the lawsuit against OpenAI to include Microsoft and Reid Hoffman, a Microsoft board member and former OpenAI board member, as defendants.

The billionaire called OpenAI's partnership with Microsoft a "de facto merger" and accused the two of anti-competitive practices, such as engaging in "lavish compensation." Musk's lawyers said the two companies "possess a nearly 70% share of the generative AI market."

"OpenAI has attempted to starve competitors of AI talent by aggressively recruiting employees with offers of lavish compensation, and is on track to spend $1.5 billion on personnel for just 1,500 employees," lawyers for Musk said in the complaint. 

Two weeks later, Musk filed a motion asking a judge to prevent OpenAI from dropping its nonprofit status.

Musk argued that OpenAI and Microsoft exploited his donations to OpenAI as a nonprofit to build a monopoly "specifically targeting xAI." In the filing, Musk's lawyers said OpenAI engaged in anticompetitive behaviors and wrongfully shared information with Microsoft.

The judge called it a "stretch" for Musk to claim he'd be irreparably harmed if she doesn't intervene to stop OpenAI from becoming a for-profit corporation, but said she wouldn't stop the case from moving to trial as early as 2025.

In a March 2025 court filing, both Musk and OpenAI agreed on wanting to expedite a trial.

The judge chastised both Altman and Musk in a decision in July for their "gamesmanship" and "excessive court filings" and said they'd "repeatedly over-litigated this case."

Musk wielded great power and influence as Trump's self-proclaimed "First Buddy" and onetime de facto head of DOGE.

Musk hasn't been quiet about his disdain for Altman postelection. He dubbed the OpenAI cofounder "Swindly Sam" in an X post on November 15. 

Musk has challenged a $500 billion AI infrastructure project, Stargate, led by OpenAI.

A day after Trump's inauguration, the President announced a $500 billion AI infrastructure project in the US called Stargate with initial funding coming from OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank, and the United Arab Emirates' MGX. The joint venture does not include Musk's xAI.

Musk took to X to challenge the plan and once again criticize his rival. Under OpenAI's post announcing plans to invest half a trillion dollars over the next four years, Musk wrote, "They don't actually have the money."

"SoftBank has well under $10B secured," he said. "I have that on good authority."

Altman pushed back, writing that Musk was "wrong," adding "I realize what is great for the country isn't always what's optimal for your companies, but in your new role I hope you'll mostly put [the country] first."

In another response to Musk, Altman wrote: "I genuinely respect your accomplishments and think you are the most inspiring entrepreneur of our time."

Musk led a group of investors in a $97.4 billion bid for control of OpenAI.

Musk said the bid was about returning OpenAI to an "open-source, safety-focused force for good."

Altman dismissed the proposal, saying, "The company is not for sale, neither is the mission."

"No thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want," he posted on X, referring to Musk's social media platform.

Altman later spoke on Musk specifically, saying, "I don't think he's a happy person."

"Probably his whole life is from a position of insecurity," Altman told Bloomberg TV. "I feel for the guy. I really do. Actually, I don't think he's a happy person. I do feel for him."

Altman believes Musk is "probably just trying to slow us down" with the bid, he told Bloomberg.

"They're trying to compete with us from a technological perspective, from, you know, getting the product into the market," Altman said, referring to Musk's xAI. "I wish he would just compete by building better products."

OpenAI's board unanimously rejected the bid, calling it Musk's "latest attempt to disrupt his competition."

Musk threatens to sue Apple, saying it gives OpenAI preferential treatment in the App Store.

"Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation. xAI will take immediate legal action," Musk said. He'd asked earlier why the App Store didn't feature X, formerly Twitter, higher in its ranking. Grok also ranked below OpenAI in the App Store.

Altman later responded on X.

"This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn't like," he wrote.

The two traded several other barbs on X, including one message from Musk saying, "Scam Altman lies as easily as he breathes," and one from Altman asking Musk to "sign an affidavit that you have never directed changes to the X algorithm in a way that has hurt your competitors or helped your own companies."

Altman said Musk's falling-out with Trump wasn't a surprise.

Musk had a public fallout with Trump after criticizing the president's "Big Beautiful Bill" and later announced his intent to form a new political party, the America Party.

Asked at the annual Sun Valley conference about the matter, Altman said he didn't know much about Musk's new party but wasn't surprised Musk had feuded with Trump.

"Elon busts up with everybody," Altman said.

Altman and Musk have also spent plenty of time criticizing each other's AI chatbots.

In a recent conversation with reporters, Altman said OpenAI wants to make useful products, adding, "You will definitely see some companies go make Japanese anime sex bots," appearing to reference Grok, which has some NSFW personas.

Musk has also tried to pit ChatGPT against Altman, tweeting a screenshot in August showing it had answered Musk's question about whether he or Altman is "more trustworthy."

Altman's failed Tesla reservation cancellation sparked a new spat.

On October 30, Altman published a "tale in three acts" on X that started with a 2018 screenshot of his Tesla Roadster reservation, which included a $45,000 fee. Next was a screenshot of his request to cancel the reservation. Then, a screenshot that showed his request was met with an automated "address not found" response.

"I really was excited for the car! And I understand delays. But 7.5 years has felt like a long time to wait," Altman wrote in his next X post.

Musk fired back the next day, saying there was a fourth act to Altman's tale in which he got a refund within 24 hours. He also accused Altman of stealing OpenAI.

"i helped turn the thing you left for dead into what should be the largest non-profit ever," Altman responded.

OpenAI, which restructured in October, has a nonprofit arm called the OpenAI Foundation, which holds equity in the for-profit side of the business. The company has said it's "one of the best-resourced philanthropic organizations ever."

On X, Altman followed up his statements by accusing Musk of wanting Tesla to take over OpenAI and turn it into a for-profit business, without the OpenAI Foundation.

"now you have a great AI company and so do we," Altman said. "can't we all just move on?"

Musk v. Altman is heading for trial

A federal judge in Oakland, California, has set a trial date of March 30, 2026, for the first of what may be multiple trials in Musk's civil racketeering lawsuit against Altman, Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft.

This first trial will deal with Musk's claim that Altman is improperly transforming OpenAI from an altruistic, purely nonprofit artificial generative intelligence lab into what his lawsuit calls a "$157 billion, for-profit, market-paralyzing gorgon," which is a contention Altman denies.

Prior to the trial, there have been extended battles over evidence and the depositions of witnesses, including wealth manager Jared Birchall and Neuralink's director of operations, Shivon Zilis, who is the mother of four of Musk's children.

The courtroom is set to be helmed by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, a jurist who brooks no nonsense.

SpaceX looks to overtake OpenAI as the world's most valuable private company.

SpaceX is planning a secondary share sale, according to an internal message to employees seen by multiple outlets, which would value the company at $800 billion, reclaiming the top spot among the world's most valuable private companies from OpenAI.

OpenAI executed its own secondary share sale in October, valuing the company at $500 billion.

The letter to employees also says SpaceX is exploring an initial public offering to "raise a significant amount of capital," The Wall Street Journal and other outlets reported. It would be the largest IPO in history.

"The thinking is that if we execute brilliantly and the markets cooperate, a public offering could raise a significant amount of capital," SpaceX Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen told staff in the December 12 message.

Musk also hinted at an IPO earlier this week.

After journalist Eric Berger published an op-ed arguing that SpaceX is likely to go public soon, Musk replied, "as usual, Eric is accurate."

The company is aiming to raise more than $25 billion through an initial public offering, a move that could push its valuation above $1 trillion, Reuters reported.

• In 1983, Lynne Austin was offered an opportunity to be a "billboard girl" for a new restaurant called Hooters.
• 42 years later, she reflects on Hooters' early days, unique marketing, and rapid rise in popularity.
• The early Hooters was very different from what it is now, she said.

This as-told-to essay is based on conversations between Business Insider's Liz Rowley and Jess Orwig with Lynne Austin, 64, the original Hooters Girl and a 42-year veteran of the company. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I've been proud to be the original Hooters Girl since day one, when we didn't even know we would be what we are today.

I got involved with Hooters in 1983. I was 22, working as a telephone operator and doing bikini contests as a side gig. After winning a contest on Clearwater Beach, the secretary of Ed Droste, one of Hooters' founders, approached me and said I'd be a perfect billboard girl for a restaurant that Ed and his partners were ready to open.

I thought, "I don't even know what a billboard girl is." Instead, I told her, "Sure, OK." I took his card, went home, and forgot all about it. Two months later, I was driving to another bikini contest, and I saw a construction sign: "Coming soon: Hooters." I made a hard right toward the parking lot, and that turn changed my life.

Watch Lynne, Ed, and other famous Hooters names recall the early days and how the company has evolved over more than four decades:

I initially scrubbed fridges

I was totally into the idea of being the Hooters Girl, wearing the uniform, and posing for pics. What I wasn't so wowed by was the idea of quitting my job and becoming a waitress, but Ed persuaded me with talk about "world fame," so I figured, why not give it a shot?

I quit my job in July 1983 because Hooters was supposed to open around the first week of August. Then September rolled around, and we still weren't open due to some licensing issues, and I was getting nervous because I wasn't making any money.

I told Ed I needed a job, and he pointed me to one of the owners, Gil DiGiannantonio, who told me to come down and they'd find something for me. He put me to work scrubbing refrigerators, stoves, and other kitchen appliances for the restaurant for $5 an hour until we finally opened in October. That was a long September.

The Hooters I first started working at was very different from today's establishments

The atmosphere at Hooters in the beginning was very different from what it is now. People didn't know what to expect when they came in, and honestly, we didn't know what to expect day to day.

I remember one time Gil told me we had to let a waitress, Brenda, go because she was wasting too much product. She would grab the paper towels on a spool from the back and drag them all the way through the restaurant if someone asked for a napkin. I was like, "She's making people laugh. This is what we are, we're fun! Please, don't fire her." He didn't.

It was barely controlled chaos, but it was a blast. That said, we initially weren't generating any revenue. I was pulling double shifts, sometimes three in a row, just to scrape by. We were winging it, doing anything we could to get customers.

Then, around spring break of '84, about six months after opening, it was like a switch. We were suddenly seeing hourslong lines out the door. It was something else. People couldn't get enough. I'd never seen a meteoric rise like that before or since.

I'd never seen such a meteoric rise

Hooters' success is largely due to its off-the-wall marketing. Ed was the brains behind a lot of it, willing to do anything and everything to try and get publicity.

We'd be at the restaurant at 5:30 a.m. to pick up a platter of freshly prepared wings and bring it to the local radio stations for a chance to promote ourselves on the radio. We got a lot of doors shut in our faces, at first.

Ed and Brenda — yes, paper towels Brenda — painted "Hooters" in bright orange on a capsized boat along the busy Courtney Campbell Causeway connecting Tampa to Clearwater.

Ed would even stand outside the restaurant in a chicken suit to try and get people in. We posted a billboard of me in the now-iconic orange shorts and white t-shirt. I also modeled for Playboy, which got us more publicity.

It was all marketing.

I had no idea that the billboard of me would bloom into what the brand has become. Eventually, it felt like my face was everywhere — on taxis and the side of the semis that brought in our food. It never ceased to thrill me.

Hooters is my family

As we grew and expanded, I had more opportunities, such as helping to open new restaurants and contributing to the annual calendar and pageant.

A couple of my favorite moments were when I dropped the flag on the Hooters 500 and when I marched on Washington in 1995, protesting the sex bias case against Hooters.

Yes, sex appeal was part of the Hooters concept. However, Hooters and its waitresses are so much more than the restaurant. After 42 years, they've become my family.

The Hooters Girls are my sisterhood. Some of those women were my bridesmaids and attended the birth of my children. We've been each other's support system through highs and lows, and I still stay in touch with some of them, including Brenda.

I worked as a waitress and guest bartender for Hooters for about seven years until I branched out and took on other roles, including in radio and local TV, where I continued to promote the brand.

Looking back, I hope that I was an integral part of shaping Hooters. I still participate in events, such as judging the annual pageant and selecting the calendar. It has been the ride of my life, besides, of course, being a mom to my four kids.