Category: Business

• Elon Musk says he wants Tesla's humanoid robot to be considered a friend.
• Musk also joked that the company wanted to make the robot "good-looking."
• Musk discussed the robot's potential at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity.

Elon Musk wants you to think of Tesla's Optimus robot as a friend.

Speaking at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Musk discussed Tesla's ambitions for its humanoid robot.

"I think people will start to regard their personal Optimus robot as sort of a friend," he said, likening it to characters from pop culture like Star Wars' robot R2-D2.

While he clarified that Tesla was not currently planning to make Optimus look like a person, Musk joked that the company wanted to make the robot "good-looking."

The Tesla CEO said the fully functional bots would be capable of performing a wide range of tasks, acting as a sort of personal assistant for a household.

"You can just ask it to walk your dog, take care of your house, babysit the kids, cook dinner, play the piano — so it's a generalized humanoid robot," he said.

He believes that each person will have their own robot and there will be others working in different industries, suggesting that robots could outnumber humans in the future.

Representatives for Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside normal working hours.

Musk has touted Tesla's Optimus robots as one of the company's most valuable assets.

"I think Optimus will be more valuable than everything else combined," Musk said during a Tesla earnings call in April.

"Because if you've got a sentient humanoid robot that is able to navigate reality and do tasks at request, there is no meaningful limit to the size of the economy," he said.

Tesla may have already put the robots to work on the factory floor.

In a rundown of the company's achievements since 2018 on X, Tesla said it had deployed two Optimus robots "performing tasks in the factory autonomously."

Musk has remained optimistic that Optimus will begin shipping next year. However, he's also acknowledged that it was "impossible to make a precise prediction."

• Plenty of movies get unnecessary sequels — we're looking at you, "Speed" and "Pitch Perfect."
• Yet there are many films that never became franchises or got stopped halfway through.
• Here are 11 films we wish had quit while they were ahead and nine sequels we're still pining for.

After Pixar's latest film, "Inside Out 2," was released on June 14, it scored the best opening weekend at the box office since "Barbie" last summer, with a domestic opening of $155 million.

Whether or not you think we needed "Inside Out 2" is a different matter.

The first "Inside Out," which introduced audiences to a pre-teen named Riley and her emotions, was a huge hit that culminated in the film winning the Oscar for best animated feature in 2016. A sequel, therefore, was what Business Insider's Jason Guerrasio called "a pretty safe bet for success." But after a neatly wrapped up original story, perhaps audiences could have been content with imagining what the rest of Riley's life was like.

Hollywood is a fickle place. Sometimes, sequels are made that absolutely no one cares about, while box-office smashes never get the chance to continue their stories. Here are some of the worst sequels we've seen, and some sequels we're still waiting for.

After two "Fantastic Beasts" sequels, we can definitively say we did not need them, and we don't need two more.

Was anyone really clamoring for the story of Newt Scamander, the Wizarding World's first magizoologist, when the first "Fantastic Beasts" movie was released back in 2016?

Not really.

But it had been five years since the final "Harry Potter" film, and as anyone living in the 21st century knows, intellectual property is everything.

But when the sequel, "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald," was released in 2018, fans were treated to a confusing story in which it felt like dozens of characters were introduced for no reason, there was no real plot, and it ended with a twist that potentially could have upended years of beloved canon. It has a dismal 36% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes and a slightly less dismal audience score of 53%.

In the six years since "Grindelwald," things have only gotten more uncomfortable in the Wizarding World between Johnny Depp's myriad controversies, creator JK Rowling's comments that many deemed transphobic, and Ezra Miller's criminal troubles.

"The Secrets of Dumbledore" was released in April 2022 to little fanfare with a still-low Rotten Tomatoes score of 46% and the lowest box-office receipts in the franchise's history, according to Games Radar.

Do we truly need two more of these movies that are ostensibly about Newt, who ends up feeling like an afterthought in his own story? Probably not, which is why not even Warner Bros. will commit to a sequel.

Apparently, even Lionsgate knew the "Divergent" sequels were a bust — the studio didn't even bother to finish the franchise.

In the wake of the mega-success of "The Hunger Games" franchise, every other dystopian young-adult saga was turned into a movie series ("Maze Runner," "Ender's Game," "The Host," etc.), but the only one that came relatively close to replicating that success was "Divergent," which was released in 2014.

"Divergent" starred Shailene Woodley as Beatrice, aka Tris, a 16-year-old who lives in a society that is divided into five factions based on personality traits — but, gasp, Tris has multiple traits and is known as "divergent." Confused? Understandably so, which is perhaps why the first film barely made a cultural impact and has a low 41% on Rotten Tomatoes.

However, two more sequels were produced (2015's "Insurgent," which has a 28%, and 2016's "Allegiant," which has an 11%). As was the 2010s custom, the last book of the series was to be split into two movies, "Allegiant" and "Ascendant," but the reception of "Allegiant" was so poor that the conclusion of the franchise was canceled.

So, we ask: Did we really need "Insurgent" and "Allegiant" if there wasn't going to be a fourth and final film? The answer is no.

"Dirty Dancing" did not need a sequel.

"Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" isn't technically a sequel, more of a spin-off or re-telling, but still: Why?

"Dirty Dancing," while beloved and an inarguable classic, hasn't aged in the best way when you think about the weird age gap between Baby (Jennifer Grey) and Johnny (Patrick Swayze), nor is the abortion plotline necessary in any way … but it's from the '80s, and we cut it some slack because of the electric chemistry between Grey and Swayze and its lovable cheesiness.

"Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights" was released 17 years later, in 2004, and didn't really add anything to the plot to make it less problematic. In fact, it made it weirder by moving the story to Cuba, which added some political and racial tension that "Dirty Dancing 2" is simply not equipped to handle, as Roger Ebert pointed out.

Movie studios: Not every classic needs a remake or a sequel. Please, let some sleeping dogs lie.

Alas, the studios didn't listen. A "Dirty Dancing" legacy sequel is set for 2025.

Neither did "Pitch Perfect," and it got two.

There's no logical reason for a story about one girl's experience joining her college's a cappella group to turn into a trilogy of absolutely wild films … besides money.

"Pitch Perfect," released in 2012, is a charming enough comedy that introduced audiences to Rebel Wilson, Ben Platt, Skylar Astin, and Anna Kendrick as a movie star. Also, that song with the cups. It was funny and told a complete story.

Then, it made six times its budget, according to Box Office Mojo, and suddenly this a cappella comedy became a franchise that had no real reason for existing — by "Pitch Perfect 3" in 2017, the crew wasn't even in college anymore, eliminating any reason they had for singing a cappella at all.

Fans had been clamoring for it, but "Space Jam: A New Legacy" made us all reconsider.

To my fellow '90s kids out there: I'm sorry to tell you, but the 1996 sports comedy classic "Space Jam" isn't a good movie. Our nostalgia and love of Michael Jordan and the Looney Tunes has clouded our judgment and made us think that the 2021 sequel would be a good idea.

We should've known that we had a real problem on our hands when the internet lost its mind regarding the redesign of Lola Bunny. We were warned again when the characters of "A Clockwork Orange" were visible in the background of this movie co-starring LeBron James and a cartoon bunny.

But the true nail in the coffin came when we found out that the villain, played by Don Cheadle, was named Al G. Rhythm … get it?

"The Mummy" is a classic, and "The Mummy 2" has some nostalgia attached to it, but the third "Mummy" movie is an abomination.

As clothing brand Super Yaki rightfully says, "'The Mummy' (1999) is perfect." Its sequel, 'The Mummy Returns," released in 2001, has its flaws, but the whole gang reunites for another romp in 1930s Egypt and it's a good time.

Seven years later, Universal trotted out Brendan Fraser's Rick O'Connell yet again for the 2008 film "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," which inexplicably leaves Egypt behind, recasts the inimitable Rachel Weisz with Maria Bello (no shade, but #NotMyEvie), and focuses on their son, Alex.

Do not even get us started on the 2017 reboot starring Tom Cruise. In a word: No.

"Sex and the City 2" almost ruined the legacy of the entire show.

"Sex and the City 2" manages to be boring, racially insensitive, and extremely long, all while being a tourism ad for Abu Dhabi.

Any "SATC" fan should be so grateful that "And Just Like That" was released in 2021 — even if Miranda's character was essentially ruined, at least it's better than how we left our gals in 2010.

There was no need for a "Snow White" sequel without Snow White, as evidenced by "The Huntsman: Winter's War."

"Snow White and the Huntsman" co-starred Kristen Stewart as the titular princess and Chris Hemsworth as the Huntsman. The 2012 film was a modest box-office hit and received middling reviews, but a sequel was still greenlit.

But when pictures emerged of Stewart and the film's married director Rupert Sanders engaging in some PDA in Us Weekly, both were axed from the 2016 sequel.

"They should've put me in that movie! It would've been better," Stewart told The Independent in 2019. "They didn't put me in that movie because I went through such a highly publicized scandal, and so they were like scared of touching that."

So, that's how we ended up with "The Huntsman: A Winter's War," a prequel/sequel to the "Snow White" film that essentially doesn't exist.

The less we speak of "Speed 2: Cruise Control," the better.

There is no need for a sequel to 1994's "Speed" without Keanu Reeves.

Sandra Bullock is a charming movie star, but even she cannot overcome the gaping hole left behind by Reeves, especially not when he was replaced by Jason Patric in the 1997 sequel, who tries his best but is just … not Keanu Reeves.

"Jaws" is a perfect movie, so it hurts that much more to talk about "Jaws 2," "Jaws 3D," and "Jaws: The Revenge."

When "Jaws" was released in June 1975, it created the idea of a summer blockbuster, and the world has never been the same.

So it makes sense that Universal would want to capitalize on the success of the shark-hunting phenomenon — but when it became clear that director Steven Spielberg would not be directing the film, plans should've been scrapped.

Instead, we got "Jaws 2," which Rotten Tomatoes pointed out "has no reason to exist," "Jaws 3D," which the site also said had "no evident reason to exist," and "Jaws: The Revenge," which features a roaring shark — yes, an undersea animal that roars. It also has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Was anyone really asking for five sequels to 2013's "The Purge"?

Somehow, the premise of "What would happen if all crime were legal for a night" has spawned a multi-film franchise — four sequels, to be exact, plus one TV show — and a complex mythology. And don't worry — a sixth film is on the way, according to ComicBook.com.

There are plenty of other horror films, some on this list, in fact, that haven't gotten sequels yet. We'd trade at least one "Purge" film for one of those other ones.

On the other hand, please keep making "Escape Room" sequels forever, à la "Halloween" or "Nightmare on Elm Street."

Maybe it's just us, but the 2019 horror film "Escape Room" and its 2021 sequel "Tournament of Champions" were both interesting, visually inventive films that we'd like to see more of.

Is "Escape Room" the most prestige horror franchise of our time? Not exactly, but there's something satisfying about people solving (or not solving) puzzles. As many on X (formerly known as Twitter) have said, "I'd give anything for an 'escape room 3' movie."

It's wild that we still have barely any "Crazy Rich Asians" sequel news.

"Crazy Rich Asians" was a phenomenon when it was released in 2018, making over $200 million worldwide. It was the first major Hollywood film to have a predominantly Asian cast since "The Joy Luck Club" in 1993; it made stars out of Gemma Chan, Henry Golding, Awkwafina, and Constance Wu; and it made us all want to travel to Singapore immediately.

The film is based on a trilogy of novels by Kevin Kwan — the next two books are "China Rich Girlfriend" and "Rich People Problems" — so where are the sequels? It's been six years — we want more Michelle Yeoh sternly playing mahjong.

In May 2022, Deadline reported that a spin-off focusing on Gemma Chan's character and her teased on-screen love interest, played by Harry Shum Jr., was in early development.

Two years later, Casey Bloys, chairman and CEO of HBO and Max content, told Variety that now a sequel TV series is in the works. Put these characters on the big screen!

When Nicolas Cage said that "National Treasure 3" wasn't happening, hearts everywhere broke a little bit.

Has a movie ever made you feel more patriotic than 2004's "National Treasure" or its (lesser, but still entertaining) 2007 sequel, "National Treasure: Book of Secrets"? If you're a '90s or 2000s kid, the answer is no.

Cage plays treasure hunter/American history expert/cryptographer/stealer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin Gates. Already, you can tell it's a perfect movie.

While the first two were both financially successful, and the second film ends with a perfect tease for a third installment, "National Treasure 3" has been pushed back many times. Finally, in 2022, Cage told The Hollywood Reporter that a third movie was not happening.

He might want to check again, though. Director Jon Turteltaub said on a podcast in May 2024 that a script for a third movie is being written. "There's a very, very good writer writing it right now who tends to write really good movies. If the script comes out close to good, and you can see the finish line from where you are, we're making the movie," he said.

Yes, a Disney+ series was released with Justin Bartha reprising his role as Riley Poole in 2022, but it was not the same without Cage and Diane Kruger. It was canceled after one season, Entertainment Weekly reported.

We're still waiting for official confirmation of a "Happy Death Day 3."

"Happy Death Day" is another horror franchise we'd like to see continue for at least one more movie. Both the original 2017 film and its 2019 sequel, "Happy Death 2U," were critically and financially successful, and they focused on a genre that has been fascinating to Hollywood for decades: "One of Those Infinite Time-Loop Situations You Might Have Heard About."

Director Christopher Landon has said he's ready to go on a third film, "Happy Death Day to Us," but is just waiting for the studio to get on board.

"It's a trilogy. I've got to make the third one. Maybe after 'Freaky' we'll figure it out. Both of us really want to do it. So hopefully we'll figure it out," he told Entertainment Tonight in 2020.

If Disney is going to give "Frozen" multiple sequels, "Tangled" deserves one too, not just an animated TV series.

Fourteen years on from the original, it's extremely unlikely that we'd get a sequel to the 2010 Disney film "Tangled," which focuses on the classic story of Rapunzel escaping her tower, with the help of thief-with-a-heart-of-gold Flynn Rider (real name Eugene Fitzherbert).

But if "Frozen," which arguably told a more complete story than "Tangled" did, is getting multiple sequels, there's no reason that "Tangled" shouldn't have gotten one, too. We want to see more of Flynn and Rapunzel's adventures! The (charming) animated series may tide you over, but we want a real, big-budget sequel, too.

It's rude that every other superhero movie got a sequel except for "Sky High."

"Sky High," released in 2005, was many kids' first exposure to superhero movies, as it was a little more child-friendly than the dark story of Batman in "Batman Begins" and not as scary as the horror-tinged "Spider-Man 2."

Instead "Sky High" told the story of Will Stronghold, the son of two iconic superheroes, who might have to contend with the fact that he's "only" a sidekick while attending a high school just for kids with superpowers.

If you've seen the movie — spoiler alert! — you know that Will comes into his own and gains the powers of both of his parents and even gets the girl by the end. But then what? Now that Will's a bona-fide superhero, what's his life like?

According to Gizmodo, there was a possibility of the film getting a college-set sequel, "Save U," but it never materialized, and we're still bitter about it.

Since we've all retroactively decided that Andrew Garfield was a perfect Spider-Man, where's "The Amazing Spider-Man 3"?

Unlike "Sky High," "The Amazing Spider-Man" did get a sequel: the extremely underwhelming "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," in 2014, two years after the original. And we thought that was that. Garfield, who went on to become a two-time Oscar nominee and Tony winner, and generally beloved movie star, moved on.

That all changed when Garfield, and OG Spidey Togey Maguire, were brought back for Tom Holland's third Spider-Man film, "Spider-Man: No Way Home." Arguably, Garfield gave the best performance in the film (we see you, Willem Dafoe fans, but we disagree), and fans began the campaign for "Amazing Spider-Man 3."

Sure, why not? Sony's clearly still looking for its universe's Spider-Man, and Garfield deserves another shot.

The creative forces behind "Edge of Tomorrow" promised us a sequel, but almost a decade later, we're still waiting.

At this point in Tom Cruise's career, this entry into his action-movie pantheon is underrated.

The 2014 sci-fi action film is another time-loop situation, this time with Cruise playing a public affairs officer in the US Army despite having no fighting experience whatsoever. Instead, he dies over and over again, reliving the same day, and picking up combat skills as he goes, along with the help of Emily Blunt's extremely capable Rita Vrataski.

In 2016, two years after its release, screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie told Collider that the idea for a sequel was "locked and loaded," but he could "only say it's a going concern" without giving any details.

Ten years later, there has been no "Edge of Tomorrow 2," but there have been three more "Mission: Impossible" movies, and at least one more is on the way.

"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" is the true seafaring adventure film from 2003 that deserved multiple sequels.

"Master and Commander" was released the same year as Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl," in 2001. Clearly, only one became a giant franchise spawning multiple sequels … but we'd argue that perhaps it was the wrong one.

"Master and Commander" is based on the Aubrey–Maturin series of historical novels, with "Far Side of the World" taking elements from three of author Patrick O'Brian's series. Russell Crowe reunited with his "A Beautiful Mind" costar Paul Bettany, and they played Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin.

While it's not as "fun" as a classic pirate tale, "Master and Commander" is an entertaining and truly breathtaking spectacle. There are 20 Aubrey—Maturin novels in total — it's time to either reboot the series with a new cast or bring back Crowe and Bettany for a second installment on the high seas.

• Mountaineer and Everest guide Garrett Madison summits the tallest mountains in the world.
• He's summited Everest 14 times, and just earned his second "triple crown," a rare mountaineering achievement.
• When he's not on expedition, he keeps his body in Everest-mode by staying active in the mountains of his home state, Washington.

Garrett Madison has built a career on risking his life to stand atop the world's tallest peaks. The mountaineer and expedition guide has summited Mt. Everest 14 times, and has led more than 80 other climbers to the top since 2009.

In May, he earned his second "triple crown" by summiting Mt. Everest and two of its neighboring peaks, Mt. Lhotse and Mt. Nuptse, in a single season. Few have achieved this rare feat.

"I feel really lucky and privileged to get to go on these expeditions," he told Business Insider.

But this epic lifestyle also pushes his body to the limit. Being in shape can mean the difference between life or death when climbing a nearly 30,000-foot-tall mountain.

Low oxygen levels, brutally cold temperatures, and long days spent navigating treacherous terrain take a toll on the body. Even fit mountaineers can succumb to exhaustion, altitude sickness, or injury.

"Fortunately, I'm on expedition quite a bit throughout the year on big mountains, so my body and mind kind of stay in mountain shape," Madison said.

But during those rare times when he isn't on expedition, he's preparing for the next one. Madison has developed a strategy for keeping his body in Everest mode in the off-season.

Always seek high-elevation

When he isn't climbing massive Himalayan peaks, Madison spends time skiing and hiking in the smaller, but still mighty mountains in and around his home state of Washington.

"Continuing to stay in the mountains throughout the year is very, very beneficial if that's where you want to be," he said.

That's because the body adapts to the low-oxygen levels at higher elevations. The top of Mt. Everest has only a third of the oxygen available at sea level. Spending time in low-oxygen environments —even ones that are less extreme than the top of Everest — actually changes your blood.

Lack of oxygen causes the body to produce more red blood cells, which carry oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body. It also produces more hemoglobin, a protein in red blood cells that helps them do their job. At extreme elevations, climbers' supercharged blood helps make sure all their organs receive enough oxygen.

This enhanced fleet of blood cells lasts long after a climber has returned to low elevation, sticking around for about 120 days. But after that, they'll start to die off. That's why Madison makes sure to spend as much time as he can at high altitudes to keep his blood Everest-ready.

How you can whip your body into Everest shape

When he's not working out at great heights, Madison said he makes sure to stay active in the gym.

"If I'm not skiing or out hiking or climbing, I'll definitely go to the gym and do a mix of strength training, and some balance, flexibility, agility work," he said.

His company, Madison Mountaineering, has even created a training guide that can help whip your body into shape for an Everest-level climbing expedition.

The cardio exercises include things like hour-long runs and steep day hikes. Muscle training includes lunges, push-ups, and jumping exercises.

It's best to train for an expedition outdoors on hilly terrain, according to the Madison Mountaineering website. But not everyone has access to this where they live.

If you're limited to working out in the gym but want to train for a big climb, try the stair mill. It mimics mountain terrain by making you lift a portion of your body weight each step, the website says.

Training for a mountaineering expedition takes a lot of time and work, but all of that effort is important to your safety on the mountain.

"It's a lot of work, but it's definitely worth it," Madison said.

• Eric Schmidt, Google's ex-CEO, found a buyer for his Atherton mansion.
• The property, located in the most expensive US zip code, includes a main home and a guest house.
• Schmidt, who served as Google and Alphabet chairman, has a net worth of around $23.9 billion.

Google's former CEO, Eric Schmidt, and his wife, Wendy, found a buyer for their mansion in Atherton, California two weeks after listing it for $24.5 million, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

The sale closed a month later, Mansion Global reported, with a price of $22.5 million.

The 5,265 square-foot listing includes a main home and a guest house in the most expensive zip code in the US. Schmidt's current net worth is estimated at around $23.9 billion, according to Forbes' ranking.

Schmidt, 69, served as CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011. He later served as chairman of Google and its parent company, Alphabet, until 2018.

Since leaving his role as CEO, Schmidt turned his focus to tech investments and philanthropy.

Scroll on to see inside the mansion.

The five-bedroom home at the top of a cul-de-sac in Atherton was Schmidt's primary residence for the last several decades.

The former CEO purchased the Atherton home for around $2 million in 1990, according to estimates by Zillow. The home was built in 1969, according to the listing.

Atherton, a small town in San Mateo County, is known to be a hotspot for tech moguls, like former Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, and former HP CEO Meg Whitman.

Schmidt is one of several tech executives that have called Atherton home.

Tech investors Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreessen, as well as early Tesla investor Alan Salzman, have also bought properties in Atherton.

The prestigious town is about a 45-minute drive to San Francisco and less than 20 minutes from the headquarters of Google, Meta, and Tesla. The average household income in Atherton is over $450,000.

It isn't the only home Schmidt bought in California. He bought Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi's 7,000-square-foot Montecito mansion in 2007.

He bought the home for $20 million and used to rent it out for weddings. However, he reportedly struggled to keep renting it after Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries used the home as their wedding venue and divorced soon after.

The billionaire also bought a Southern California "French chateau" in Los Angeles in 2014, about five minutes from the Playboy Mansion.

He also bought homes on the East Coast. In 2013, he purchased a $15 million penthouse in New York City and reportedly spent millions soundproofing it.

Schmidt and his wife purchased a home in Nantucket in 1999, where she reportedly spent most of her time.

The billionaire also reportedly paid $67.6 million for a 267-foot superyacht in 2023.

The exterior of the guest house has an outdoor fireplace, an amphitheater on one side, and a cascading water feature on the other.

Both the guest house and main home were designed by Schwanke Architecture.

The home has multiple terraces and access to the outdoors in almost every room.

The home has ample access to natural light with large open doors and windows throughout the home.

The estate has five bedrooms, eight total bathrooms, and a fireplace in the living room and family room.

The two-story home also has a wet bar, according to the online listing by The reSolve Group.

The sold mansion includes three acres of park-like grounds and an outdoor pool.

The property has a 3.36 acre lot and 5,265 square foot living area, according to the listing.

Like many Atherton homes, landscaping surrounding the house creates a secluded feel to the property.

Both the front and back of the house are shaded by large trees and greenery. The back of the house also has a fenced area to create privacy.

The estate includes a diverse selection of mature plants and specimen trees from Amdega Conservatory imported from the UK.

The greenhouse is equipped with wooden shelves, a sink, and black and white floor tiles.

The home also has several areas for growing plants or produce.

In addition to the greenhouse, the outdoor area has several planting plots.

The home embraces the California landscape of while incorporating European design.

Dark wooden furniture and flooring contrast against bright green outdoor openings in the estate.

• Russia is expanding arms production by buying secondhand tools via China to evade sanctions.
• A new report sheds light on how the Kremlin is circumventing Western restrictions.
• There's a lack of compliance in the secondhand market, the lead researcher told the FT.

Russia is rushing to expand its arms production by buying secondhand machine tools from China through covert networks to get around Western sanctions.

A report from Washington-based nonprofit think-tank The Center for Advanced Defense Studies, or C4ADS, said that Russia's arms manufacturers were "scrambling to expand their production capabilities using whatever they can get."

And Russian defense industry analyst and lead researcher Allen Maggard told the Financial Times that the decades-old machine tools Russia is importing are still effective.

"Just because a machining center is two or three decades old doesn't mean that it's incapable of producing simple components for weapons," he said.

"This speaks to a lack of compliance in the second-hand market, not to mention that manufacturers are unlikely to care about where their products end up after being sold," he added.

Getting around sanctions

Since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has had to find the supplies needed to keep its war machine going.

One of Russia's greatest vulnerabilities is its reliance on foreign technologies, including machine tools that automate the manufacture of precision-guided munitions and aircraft parts, among other key defense equipment, the researchers wrote in the report.

Faced with restrictive sanctions and export controls, the Kremlin has turned to complicated arrangements with opaque companies that act as middlemen.

Many Russian military suppliers have been placed under sanctions by the US. However, they are finding workarounds.

One supplier, AMG, increased its buying of high-end defense equipment made by a Japanese company, Tsugami, from $600,000 in 2021 to $50 million in 2023, according to customs documents.

In 2023 more than 60% of Tsugami sales were to China.

The rise from AMG has come through two middlemen, according to the report: Amegino, a US-sanctioned company based in the UAE and owned by Andrey Mironov, and ELE Technology, a company based in China that fraudulently claims to be part of US company Gray Machinery.

Glenn Gray, the president of Gray Machinery, told the FT he'd never heard of the company.

Tsugami also told the publication that it hasn't sold any products directly to ELE.

Documents seen by C4ADS show that Amegino and ELE have worked together to procure goods for Russia, according to the report, with Amegino acting as a broker, commissioning Chinese companies such as ELE to ship goods to Russia.

C4ADS found other similar cases including a Russian company, UMIC — not sanctioned by the US but thought to be owned by the wife of the owner of AMG — acquiring machine tools made in various countries around the world, but all bought in yuan through Chinese traders and shipped from China.

UMIC and ELE did not immediately reply to Business Insider's request for comment.

• A record 128,000 millionaires are expected to move countries in 2024, according to a new report.
• Data from Henley & Partners shows the UAE has the largest predicted inflow of millionaires.
• This is the third year the UAE, dubbed a "wealth magnet" by the firm, topped the list.

Millionaires are choosing one place above all to move to, according to a new report: the United Arab Emirates.

According to data from the latest report by Henley & Partners, a firm that advises the wealthy on where to move to protect and grow their assets, 6,700 millionaires are projected to move to the UAE this year.

That's nearly double the inflow to the US, which had the second-highest expected migration of millionaires, at 3,800.

The US, however, still has the largest overall population of millionaires, followed by China, it said. The UAE came in 14th.

The annual wealth report suggested that a record-breaking 128,000 millionaires, defined as individuals with liquid investable assets over $1 million, are expected to move countries this year.

The firm dubbed 2024 a "watershed moment in the global migration of wealth."

The firm's calculations are based on millionaire migration data from the first six months of 2024, rounded to the nearest 100, supplied by wealth intelligence firm New World Wealth.

China is actually on track to lose the greatest number of millionaires in 2024, with 15,200 high-net-worth individuals, or HNWIs, expected to leave the country, it said.

This is a 10% increase from last year, it added, when China also had the highest outflow of millionaires.

The UK is predicted to see the second-highest expatriation of millionaires in 2024, it said, with 9,500 likely to leave. This is double the 4,200 who left the UK last year.

The UK, particularly London, is feeling a steep reversal in its status as a hub for the ultrawealthy. Policy changes targeting the ultrawealthy ahead of elections this summer are to blame, according to Hannah White, director of the UK think tank Insitute for Government, per the report's press release.

According to the release, the UAE has positioned itself as a global "wealth magnet" thanks to its nonexistent income tax, "golden" visas, and luxury lifestyle.

This is the third year in a row that the Emirates has landed the top spot on the list.

Dubai, the UAE's luxurious epicenter, has seen a boom in real-estate investment, with luxury apartment complexes due to be completed in 2024 and 2025 selling out in just one day.

Attracting and retaining HNWIs is an important strategy in geopolitical relations.

Dominic Volek, the head of private clients at Henley & Partners, said millionaire migration could inject capital and talent into the host nations as a "debt-free source of funding for governments," per the report.

• Billionaire Elon Musk spoke to WPP CEO Mark Read in an interview at Cannes Lions on Wednesday.
• On the topic of the future of AI, Musk reminded the audience he cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit. 
• He said he named the company after "open source," and made a dig at the direction it has taken.

Elon Musk reminded the audience at Cannes Lions on Wednesday that he was the person to name OpenAI as he made a jab at the direction the company has taken since then.

Musk took to the festival stage as a guest speaker in an interview with WPP CEO Mark Read, where he discussed technical innovation.

During the conversation, Read breached the topic of AI and the future of tech.

Musk, who cofounded OpenAI in 2015 but reportedly left the company three years later, has often traded barbs over the future of AI with OpenAI's current CEO, Sam Altman.

He even filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing them of betraying the firm's founding principles, which he has recently dropped.

On the topic of OpenAI, Musk told Read he had started the company, in part to offset Google.

"It was very much a unipolar world where Google was completely dominant in AI," he said.

Musk added that the company was "formed with a lot of good intentions." He said, "The 'open' in OpenAI was meant to stand for 'open source,'" adding, "I named it."

This isn't the first time Musk has alluded to his role in christening the AI company responsible for ChatGPT. In a post on X in 2023, he made a similar comment.

Musk reiterated his ongoing qualms with OpenAI with a final dig: "Now it's closed-source for maximum-profit AI, which is different from what was intended. I don't know how it got there."

This aligns with Musk's remarks about his displeasure with the current direction of OpenAI, which was founded as a nonprofit.

It shed that status in 2019, to operate as a "capped-profit" company to "raise investment capital and attract employees," per a company blog post at the time.

The company announced a partnership with Microsoft the same year, which initially invested $1 billion into OpenAI.

After launching publicly in November 2022, ChatGPT attracted 100 million users in just two months. Microsoft then increased its investment, reportedly pouring a further $10 billion into the AI firm.

Musk's pessimism about AI is largely directed at its development as a "for-profit" industry. He has been outspoken about the safety issues related to AI in the hands of corporate, for-profit entities. In 2020, Musk said he feared Google's Deepmind could one day effectively take over the world.

But Musk's discussion with Read suggested his opinion could be shifting. He told the executive: "In the positive scenario, the AI will be doing its best to make you happy. So that might work out pretty well."

• More than 817,000 people moved out of California from 2021 to 2022, per most recent census data. 
• It's not just regular people: Celebrities leave Los Angeles for places including Texas and Florida.
• Here are 17 celebrities who left LA — plus where they chose to move to and why. 

California is the US state with the most people moving out, with about 817,000 leavers between 2021 and 2022, according to the most recent census data.

And while regular people ditch the Golden State, several celebrities, who can typically afford to live wherever they want, have also decided California is no longer the place for them.

Singer-turned-talk show host Kelly Clarkson traded Los Angeles for New York City post-divorce for in 2022, while actor Sylvester Stallone said earlier this year that he and his family are "permanently" vacating California for South Florida.

Popular moving destinations for Californians include Arizona, Florida, and Texas.

People have told Business Insider recently that reasons for leaving LA and California include high taxes, expensive home prices, and challenging social and political conditions. Some celebrities remain tight-lipped when sharing moves of their news, simply saying they're looking for a fresh start. Other high-profile actors, however, admit that the fast-paced, stressful scene in Hollywood can be another motivation.

Los Angeles, in particular, is experiencing an exodus of wealthier people in search of places where their money goes further.

Take Gus Lira, a managing partner at a private jet charter company, who had a condo in Malibu overlooking the ocean. California taxes were wearing him down, so he decided to move to Nevada.

"For me, really the main reason, and for many of the people that I know, is just taxes," Lira told Business Insider in January. "You can't get ahead when you get $100 and they take $60."

Business Insider compiled a list of 17 celebrities — some in celebrity couples — who left California for greener pastures, presented in alphabetical order by last name. We tried to include both where they moved to and why they left LA.

Jessica Biel and Justin Timberlake left LA to shield their kids from the glare of the paparazzi.

The power couple has dealt with the paparazzi for most of their professional careers. But they had enough of their kids also having to endure it.

Since 2018, Biel, Timberlake, and their two kids have lived predominantly at their properties in Tennessee and Montana.

"You get hammered on the East Coast. You kind of get hammered on the West Coast. That's why we don't really live there anymore," said Biel in a May 22 episode of SiriusXM's "Let's Talk Off Camera With Kelly Ripa," seemingly referring to her former home of LA. "We're just trying to create some normalcy for these kids."

Dean Cain left LA for Las Vegas because of the "incredible taxation" and "horrible regulations for business" in California.

Dean Cain, best known for playing Clark Kent/Superman in "Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman," was fed up with how things were run in California.

The actor split for Vegas last year.

"It's the most ridiculous large government, incredible taxation, horrible regulations for business," he told Fox News Digital in 2023. "Very anti-business."

Cain said California's personal income tax felt especially high.

"I moved to Las Vegas. I live in Nevada now," he added. "I have 10 times as nice a house. I'm not kidding. Ten times as nice a house as I had in Malibu. The house is absolutely stunningly built. Gorgeous, beautiful. Everything is brand new."

Kelly Clarkson didn't just move from LA to New York — she took her daytime talk show with her.

Kelly Clarkson felt she had a new lease on life when she moved to New York City last year.

After finalizing her divorce from ex-husband Brandon Blackstock in 2022, she didn't just take her kids east. She also brought "The Kelly Clarkson Show" — it started taping in New York in season 5.

"I was very depressed for the last three years — and maybe a little before that, if I'm being honest. I think I really needed the change," the Grammy winner told People. "I needed it for me and my family as well. My kids are thriving here. We're just doing so much better, and we needed a fresh start."

John Goodman left LA in the late '80s.

John Goodman figured out a long time ago that Los Angeles wasn't for him and has been living in New Orleans since the late 1980s.

Like many, the Emmy winner first visited Crescent City to party. In the late 1970s, he showed up with his fraternity pals. A few years later, as an actor, he was shooting the movie "Everybody's All-American" alongside Dennis Quaid, Jessica Lange, and Timothy Hutton when he met his future wife, Anna Beth. He's been attached to the city ever since.

"I used to come down here every time I'd get a few dimes to rub together, and it felt like I was missing something unless I was here," he told "Today" in 2023. "I consider myself very lucky to be here."

Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban moved to Tennessee to be closer to the country music scene.

A year after Nicole Kidman tied the knot with country-music star Keith Urban, the two got the heck out of LA.

In 2007, they moved to Nashville, where the Australian Oscar winner dove headfirst into Urban's world.

"That country-music community is a very warm community," she told People in 2016. "It's very protective. Keith's been a part of it for decades now. It's his home, it's our home."

Matthew McConaughey headed to Texas to help his family.

A few years before the McConaissance led to Matthew McConaughey's best actor Oscar win, he and his wife Camila Alves fled Hollywood for his home state of Texas.

The two settled in Austin in 2012 after buying a 10,800-square-foot mansion. According to a profile in Southern Living, it was initially because of a "family crisis," as he needed to help his mother and two brothers. That led to the couple deciding to stay put to raise their three children there.

"Ritual came back," McConaughey said of being back in Texas. "Whether that was Sunday church, sports, dinner together as a family every night, or staying up after that telling stories in the kitchen, sitting at the island pouring drinks and nibbling while retelling them all in different ways than we told them before."

Amanda Seyfried headed to upstate New York for a taste of the simple life.

With movies like "Mean Girls" and "Mamma Mia!" in her filmography, you would think Amanda Seyfried would want to lay her head down somewhere glamorous.

But she actually prefers life on a farm.

Seyfried spends most of her time on a farm in the Catskills, a mountain range north of New York City, told Architectural Digest reported in 2023. in 2023 that that she purchased in 2014.

"It's insane how much I can feel so accomplished and successful here without having to be in a successful movie," she told The New York Times in 2020.

Sylvester Stallone wanted a new start in Florida.

After decades of living in Los Angeles — including in his first dingy apartme.nt on Balboa Boulevard, which would become the inspiration for his iconic character Rocky Balboa — Sylvester Stallone packed up and left town in 2023.

This was first revealed in early 2024, during season two of his reality series "The Family Stallone".

"After a long, hard consideration, your mother and I have decided, time to move on and leave the state of California permanently, and we're going to go to Florida," Stallone said. "We're going to sell this house."

Stallone and his wife, Jennifer Flavin, gave multiple reasons for the relocation, including the desire for a fresh start after their children moved out of the family home.

Rod Stewart went back to his roots in England.

The legendary rocker decided that at 79 years old, it was time to stop traveling across the pond.

Last year, he put his sprawling 38,500-square-foot Beverly Hills property, which he has lived in since 1975, on the market.

Selling the home is bittersweet for Stewart: "I don't want to sell it, and the kids don't want me to sell it either," Stewart told People. "There's too many fond memories. I've lived [in LA] since 1975, and I adore the place."

But he said he's making England a more permanent home since wrapping up his latest world tour and Las Vegas residency last year.

Hilary Swank moved to a Colorado ski town.

The Oscar winner is loving her new life in the mountains of Telluride, Colorado, on 168 acres with five rescue dogs.

She and her husband, Philip Schneider, bought the land in 2016, broke ground in 2018, and finally completed the home in 2020.

A year later, she put her LA home on the market and has been living it up in the great outdoors.

"I have been looking for land since I was in my mid-20s," Swank told Architectural Digest in 2022. "I find nature to be my happiest place, and animals are my other happiest place. And to be with both of them is everything to me."

Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively left LA after just six months of dating.

When you know, you know. After less than a year of dating, Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively packed up their stuff and left Hollywood for the suburbs of New York City.

In 2012, after six months of dating, the couple bought a $2.3 million home in Pound Ridge, New York.

"We don't live in LA. We live on a farm in New York," said the "Deadpool" star in a 2015 interview. "And we don't lead a wild and crazy life. It's not that hard. It's not a big deal."

Julia Roberts hasn't lived in LA for decades.

The Oscar winner realized many years ago that Los Angeles wasn't for her.

Roberts moved to a 32-acre ranch in Taos, New Mexico, in 1995.

The "Pretty Woman" star told Oprah back in 2003 that in New Mexico, everything is "clear."

"Around here, I come and go like it's nothing," she said. "Los Angeles is such a town of show business, and I'm a terrible celebrity. I find it difficult — it's the beast that must be fed."

James Van Der Beek moved his family out of LA after he and his wife renewed their vows in Austin.

In 2020, James Van Der Beek and his wife Kimberly renewed their wedding vows for their 10th anniversary in Austin, Texas.

A year later, they moved their six kids from LA to Austin, where they now live on a 36-acre property.

"We wanted to get the kids out of Los Angeles," Van Der Beek told Austin Lifestyle in 2021. "We wanted to give them space and we wanted them to live in nature."

Mark Wahlberg moved his family to Las Vegas for a "fresh start."

Boston-born Mark Wahlberg set out to LA years ago to make it as an actor. Over his career, he realized he rarely stayed there to make any of his movies. So, in 2022, he packed up and moved his family to Las Vegas.

He told The Talk in October 2022 that in Nevada his four kids can more easily pursue their hobbies, including golfing, riding horses, and playing basketball.

"We came here to just kind of give ourselves a new look, a fresh start for the kids, and there's a lot of opportunity here," Wahlberg told The Talk. "I'm really excited about the future."

• Elon Musk isn't interested in living forever.
• In a recent interview, Musk said if people live too long they inhibit new ideas.
• Several tech leaders have been leveraging their wealth to fight the effects of aging.

Unlike some of his contemporaries, Elon Musk isn't interested in living forever.

During an interview at the Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity on Wednesday, the Tesla CEO said he hadn't made any investments in the longevity industry.

"I think it is important that we die at least at some point," he told Mark Read, CEO of advertising giant WPP. "If we live for too long, I think it does ossify society. There's no changing of the leadership because leadership never dies."

He added that this could inhibit new ideas as people won't change their minds.

"Think of some of the worst individuals in the world. How long do you want them to live?" he joked.

Musk has made similar comments in the past. In 2021, he called death "important," adding he didn't think anyone should "try to live for a super long time."

Several of Musk's Silicon Valley contemporaries have been dabbling in longevity, leveraging their wealth to fight the effects of aging.

Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, and OpenAI's Sam Altman have all invested in companies trying to reverse aging at the cellular level. Others, including Google's Sergey Brin, are using their money to combat age-related conditions, such as cancer and Parkinson's disease.

Some entrepreneurs, like Kernel CEO Bryan Johnson, have taken on intensive nutrition, exercise, and wellness plans to try and slow or even reverse the aging process.

Musk has long been concerned about the effect an aging population could have on the world.

He has previously warned that society could "crumble" if people don't have children and has cited low birth rates as one of the "biggest risks to civilization."

Representatives for Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside normal working hours.

• Richemont, the conglomerate behind brands like Cartier, is outperforming its competition.
• Its focus on hard luxury, like jewelry and watches, has helped it through a rough economic climate.
• Plus, over-indexing in China and a clear direction for leadership have helped the company shine.

LVMH is the biggest luxury conglomerate in the world. As the owner of brands like Louis Vuitton, Moët & Chandon, and Bulgari, the French company has become synonymous with luxury — and made a lot of money doing it, as demonstrated by CEO Bernard Arnault's position as the third-richest man in the world.

But there's another corporation beating LVMH at its own game, and you probably haven't even heard of it: Richemont.

Switzerland-based Richemont, behind brands like Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, and Piaget, is having a moment.

Its stock has climbed more than 20% since the start of the year, outperforming LVMH as well as Kering, which sells brands like Gucci and Saint Laurent. It's a boon for investors seeking reassurance that European luxury stocks aren't over — especially in China.

"Richemont has provided reassurance to investors on several points. Cartier and Van Cleef are continuing to show very strong momentum and notable growth," Chiara Battistini, JPMorgan's head of European luxury and sporting goods research, told Business Insider over email.

One major benefit in this uncertain economic climate: Richemont is skewed to hard luxury, including the iconic designs of Cartier, which has been creating jewelry for high-flying members of society for more than 150 years, as well as Van Cleef.

"In tough times, because we are in tough times right now in luxury, there is a tendency to buy less, buy better," Erwan Rambourg, the global cohead of consumer and retail research at HSBC, told BI. "At the end of the day, if you have to buy one piece of jewelry from one jeweler, it's going to be Cartier."

In the first quarter of this year, Richemont's largest brands all saw positive year-over-year growth on Google Trends and an increase in website visits, according to a JPMorgan report from May. Meantime, brands like Louis Vuitton and Gucci saw declines in both areas.

Even LVMH's Arnault has noticed: "In the competition, there's a very good group, that is the Richemont Group," he said in January, going on to compliment the group's chairman, fellow billionaire Johann Rupert. "Rupert, we consider as an outstanding leader. And I don't, in the slightest, wish to upset his strategy."

All that glitters is gold

Unlike luxury conglomerates LVMH and Kering, Richemont focuses disproportionately on hard luxury — literally, the stuff made from hard materials like gold, gemstones, and diamonds. In the 2024 fiscal year, jewelry made up 69% of its revenue and watches 18%.

It's a good time to be in that business. During difficult macroeconomic times or when people are squeezed, they are more likely to splurge on something they know will hold value, like metals and gems, than on something less durable and more trend-driven, like clothing or handbags (with Hermès being a notable exception).

"At times of economic crisis — I mean, not that everyone runs out and buys a Cartier watch or a Van Cleef & Arpels necklace — but they are a safer bet," Fflur Roberts, the head of global luxury goods at Euromonitor, told BI.

Part of the reason is that a classic Cartier piece — like the rectangular Tank watch launched in 1919 or the three-banded Trinity ring, which debuted five years later — is unlikely to go out of style. The Love collection, a Cartier classic featuring a screw motif, has been around for five decades and still makes up more than 20% of the company's revenue, HSBC's Rambourg said.

"It doesn't have the fashion risk to the same extent as, for instance, apparel and even leather goods," Jelena Sokolova, a senior equity analyst for Morningstar, told BI of the fine jewelry business. "All of this favors the most established brands: Cartier and Van Cleef."

Jewelry is also a good investment. A 2022 study by Credit Suisse and Deloitte called fine jewelry and watches "safe havens" in "uncertain times," with steady single-digit returns and low volatility.

"The world might come to an end, and your piece of jewelry might still be worth something," Rambourg said.

And when it comes to buying bling as an investment, no one wants to roll the dice on something new.

"When people are concerned about putting their money in other, more traditional financial assets, then jewelry has become an area where people are investing," Euromonitor's Roberts said. "Spending a bit more and getting a really true heritage luxury brand like Cartier" is safer, she added.

China cha-ching

Last month, rumors swirled that Van Cleef planned to raise its prices in China — and chaos ensued. Local news outlets reported lines forming at the country's 30-plus stores as customers rushed to buy Alhambra bracelets, which cost anywhere from $1,420 for a single clover on a yellow gold chain to $61,500 for a five-clover diamond design.

The frenzy shows just how devoted Chinese consumers are to the now-iconic clover pieces, which can be seen on the wrists and necks of the country's influencers and street-style inspirations.

The popularity is reflected in the data. Driven by Richemont's top brands, Cartier and Van Cleef, sales gained 7% in the country, including Hong Kong and Macau, in Richemont's 2024 fiscal year.

Meanwhile, some luxury conglomerates, like Gucci's parent company Kering, have struggled in that market. While Richemont's results in the country have been touch-and-go depending on the quarter, the company is still beating out the competition.

"They are over-indexed in China compared to their peers," Sokolova said.

Part of that is related to the increasing popularity of jewelry in the country. In 2023, jewelry and watches overtook handbags as the top-spending category in China, according to a McKinsey report. By 2027, its share of discretionary spending is expected to gain another four percentage points.

On top of that, the philosophy of buying a tried and true brand — and specifically recognizable items from one of these brands — is even stronger in China. Branded jewelry is expected to increase from 15% of the market in 2019 to 25% to 30% in 2025, according to a 2021 McKinsey report. That growth is driven by customers in Asia.

From the aforementioned Alhambra line, which was called out on Richemont's earnings call, or Cartier's Love collection, no one does branded like Richemont.

"If you're in a bar or restaurant, you're sitting at a distance, you can recognize the Labra pendant from Van Cleef. You can recognize the Love ring or the Love bracelet or the Trinity," Rambourg said. "It's the equivalent of putting a big fat logo on a bag."

Passing down the crown jewels

There's another piece of hardware that Richemont has handled well: its scepter.

In May, the company announced a new CEO, Nicolas Bos, a Cartier veteran who transformed Van Cleef from an unprofitable brand to Richemont's second-biggest cash driver.

It was welcome news in an industry in which many companies remain family-run — a model accompanied by uncertainty. LVMH and Prada have both been caught up in media speculation around who will take over when their patriarch and matriarch, respectively, step aside.

While chairman Rupert is still staying on — the controlling shareholder, he founded the company by spinning the international brands off of his father's South African conglomerate in 1988 — Bos' appointment provides some relief for investors. The company's announcement caused shares to tick up 6%.

"The No. 1 question I've had for the past two years is who's going to replace Rupert? What's the post-Rupert world?" Rambourg said. "They just bought themselves a lot of time by nominating a 51-year-old to run the group."

The appointment also included a restructuring of the company, naming one CEO for the entire conglomerate, which "provided better clarity and more straightforward structure on corporate governance," JPMorgan's Battistini said.

That said, Bos does have his work cut out for him, particularly regarding the YNAP, the group's online fashion retailer that owns sites like Net-A-Porter. It's a lossmaker for a company, and a deal to offload it fell apart in December. Last week, it was reported that the platform would pull out of China amid dwindling sales.

But as they say, heavy is the head that wears that crown — but perhaps not the arm that wears the Cartier Love bracelet.