AirPod competitors are pouring into the wireless earbud industry, challenging Apple’s seat on the throne. We tried out cheaper AirPod dupes to see how they stack up against the real thing.

The Kentucky Derby is the biggest horse race in America, and preparing for it takes millions of dollars and thousands of people. We went to Churchill Downs days before the big race to see what it takes to train the winning horse and prepare the century-old track for 400,000 fans.

• The US lifted a ban on Azov Brigade, allowing it to receive American weapon shipments.
• The Azov Brigade, part of Ukraine's National Guard, has faced scrutiny for its past far-right ties.
• The State Department found no evidence of human rights violations after vetting the brigade.

The US State Department announced Monday that it has lifted a ban on the Azov Brigade, a former Ukrainian militia group with an ultranationalist history, allowing the current National Guard unit to receive American weapon shipments and training.

A State Department spokesperson told BBC on Tuesday that following a vetting of the brigade, there was "no evidence of gross violations of human rights."

The group was established in 2014 as the Azov Battalion by a figure linked to far-right hate groups in Ukraine. The unit's members' alleged far-right ties led the US to bar the group from receiving assistance.

Now known as the Azov Brigade, the unit became part of the Ukrainian National Guard in 2015. The unit sought to distance itself from its checkered past, yet it has also been banned from receiving US assistance for years, since the passing of a 2018 congressional spending bill.

The State Department has dismissed the congressional ban and said the Azov Brigade "passed Leahy vetting," referring to Leahy Law, which prevents the US from supporting foreign entities that have committed major human rights violations.

"Understanding by our allies how important it is to help each of these units is another important step on the way of our struggle for independence," Ukrainian National Guard spokesperson Ruslan Muzychuk told The Washington Post following the State Department announcement.

The Kremlin has used the Azov Brigade as a talking point in justifying Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as President Vladimir Putin has previously stated that his objectives of the war include the "demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine."

The Azov Brigade has claimed that it has evolved from its problematic past and that its leadership has changed since its inception.

In a response to the decision on Instagram, the unit wrote that "obtaining Western weapons and training from the United States will not only increase the combat ability of Azov, but most importantly, contribute to the preservation of the lives and the health of personnel."

"This is a new page in our unit's history," the brigade said, adding that "Azov is becoming even more powerful, even more professional and even more dangerous for occupiers."

The brigade is closely associated with its significant, albeit costly, defense of Mariupol in 2022 at the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, where it was eventually forced to surrender its fight from the Azovstal steel mill. The unit's soldiers have been celebrated as heroes and symbol of Ukrainian resistance.

Clarence Thomas took in his grandnephew and raised him like a son. Mark Martin now faces more than 25 years on drug and weapons charges. The Thomas' guardianship is part of the scandal surrounding the Supreme Court justice's failure to disclose gifts from billionaire Harlan Crow.

• The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady in its latest decision on Wednesday.
• Its Summary of Economic Projections also penciled in just one interest rate cut for 2024.
• Still, Powell cautioned that could change and left the door open for a rate cut in September.

The odds of an interest rate cut this year just got slimmer.

On June 12, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that it would hold interest rates steady as the nation's central bank continues to work to lower inflation to its 2% target.

Notably, alongside the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision, the FOMC also released its Summary of Economic Projections — and the committee now has just one interest rate cut penciled in for 2024, with further cuts expected in 2025.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell said during the Wednesday press conference that when looking at the FOMC's projections, they should be viewed as just that: projections. There's still time for them to change based on upcoming economic data, he said, and it's "plausible" that a rate cut could happen as soon as September.

"We want to gain further confidence. Certainly, more good inflation readings will help with that," Powell said.

"It's going to be the totality of the data, what's happening in the labor market, what's happening with the balance of risks, what's happening with the forecast, what's happening with growth," he added. "You look at all of that, and you ask, 'Are we confident? Have we reached an appropriate level of confidence that inflation is moving down sustainably to 2%, or alternatively, do we see really unexpected signs of weakness in the labor market?'"

The Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation, rose 3.3% year over year in May, a slight decrease from April's 3.4% reading, showing the economy is headed in the right direction. While Powell said the latest reading is a positive sign, it's not sufficient to allow the Fed to loosen its restrictive monetary policy.

However, some Democratic lawmakers have urged Powell to cut rates sooner rather than later, given the financial strains Americans continue to face under high inflation. Powell acknowledged those pains but reiterated that it's most important for the Fed to hold off on cutting until it gets more data rather than cutting too soon and having to raise rates again at a later date.

"In the meantime, it's going to be painful for people, but the ultimate pain would be a long period of high inflation," Powell said. "It is people who have lower incomes, people at the margins of the economy who have the worst experience, who experience the most pain from inflation. So you know, it's for those people, for all Americans, but particularly for those people, that we're doing everything we can to bring inflation back down under control."

The offers and details on this page may have updated or changed since the time of publication. See our article on Business Insider for current information.

• Without realizing it, I became addicted to visiting Starbucks around the world.
• In 2020, I abruptly stopped, challenging myself to explore more local options.
• Constantly searching for new coffee shops has taught me how to better trust my instincts.

When I first started drinking coffee, I was intimidated by every café that had its own long menu with unique drink names and too many ways to personalize a drink.

Soon, I found comfort in Starbucks: No matter where in the world I was, I could order the exact same thing and know what to expect.

As a travel journalist, I began searching for the familiar logo everywhere, from Bali and Morocco to Barcelona and Buenos Aires. It wasn't hard — Starbucks is the largest coffee chain in the world, on track to have 55,000 stores by 2030.

But about four and a half years ago, I was on my way to claim my free Starbucks birthday drink when a lightbulb went off in my head.

I was in San Francisco, and as I passed one adorable little coffee shop after another, I wondered why I was overlooking so many small businesses so I could get coffee from a megacorporation that netted $36 billion in the 2023 fiscal year.

That day, I sipped my last drop of frozen coffee through a green straw (OK, technically a sippy top since the chain had stopped offering plastic straws by then) and quit Starbucks.

It was a challenging transition that meant spending more money on coffee

Though I live a block from a Starbucks, I started forcing myself to walk past it in search of local options.

My self-imposed ban began in 2020 during the peak days of the coronavirus pandemic, so I quickly realized the spending power I had with my daily coffee.

Many independent coffee shops closed during or shortly after the height of the pandemic. Even now, smaller cafés depend on every customer's support.

Starbucks doesn't need my money as much, even though it had actually been cheaper for me. At the time, I'd been spending $3 to $5 for my Starbucks drinks. At local shops, my drinks were closer to $4 to $7.

After happily paying extra for milk substitutes and gratuity at small businesses, the cost of my typical coffee order eventually started inching closer to double digits. Still, I felt better knowing the dollars were going back to my community.

I also turned grabbing coffee into an adventure

Giving up Starbucks also meant I'd have to break some old habits.

Instead of rotely going to the closest Starbucks, I began to pull up Google Maps to search for a new coffee shop every time. In the beginning, I often landed at mediocre cafés.

But as I started traveling again, I realized what felt like a chore at home started to feel like a delight when I was abroad. After all, traveling is all about discovering new finds.

Every coffee shop has its own menu, system, and style. Instead of being an old pro in a familiar place, I became the constant newbie in a strange setting, asking for WiFi passwords and bathroom keys.

Eventually, trying new spots became a mini daily adventure stirred up into my coffee break.

Now I'm more than 4 years Starbucks-free — and won't go back

The bottom line is that my coffee budget has gone up — I recently paid $12.69 for a vanilla oat latte at a local shop, about $5 more than it would've cost at Starbucks — but now I see more than a cup of joe.

I see coffee time as an experience, a moment to connect with a slice of a community that I wouldn't normally have been immersed in.

Plus, at local coffee shops, I'm one of few customers instead of one of many in a long line. I'm more likely to get doted on with top-notch service instead of just feeling like a name on a cup.

Sometimes, I still end up at coffee chains — but my self-imposed ban means I'll opt for smaller ones like Blank Street or Gregory's Coffee instead of mega-global franchises.

I still feel like a bit of a jerk when I have business meetings scheduled at a Starbucks and ask to go somewhere else. But it's a pretty good conversation starter, and I've even had colleagues tell me they're also steering away from the chain.

I don't have a personal vendetta against Starbucks. It's just that by quitting, my coffee world has opened up beyond the limitations of one company — and forever hunting for a new coffee shop has become my ultimate pick-me-up.

• Elon Musk helped found OpenAI, but he has frequently criticized it in recent years.
• Though he recently sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, he has since dropped the lawsuit.
• Here's a history of Musk and Altman's working relationship.

Elon Musk and Sam Altman lead rival AI firms and now 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 recently announced his own AI venture, xAI.

Their was enough bad blood that Musk even sued OpenAI and Altman, accusing them in the suit betraying the firm's founding principles, before dropping the lawsuit.

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, including Peter Thiel, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, and Y Combinator cofounder Jessica Livingston.

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.

Source: Business Insider

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.

Source: BBC, OpenAI

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 of the situation. "I had to reorient a lot of my life and time to make sure we had enough funding."

Source: Business Insider, The New Yorker, Business Insider

In 2023, it was reported that Sam Altman and other OpenAI cofounders had rejected Musk's proposal to run the company in 2018.

Semafor reported 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 reported.

Source: Semafor, Business Insider

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."

Source: Business Insider

Musk has taken shots at OpenAI on several occasions since leaving.

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

Musk also added that his "confidence in Dario for safety is not high," referring to Dario Amodei, who led OpenAI's strategy at the time.

Source: Business Insider

 

In December 2022, days after OpenAI released ChatGPT, Musk said the company had prior access to the database of Twitter — now owned by Musk — to train the AI chatbot and that he was putting that on hold.

"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.

Source: Twitter

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

In November 2022, the chatbot took off and garnered millions of users for its ability to do everything from write essays to craft basic code.

Source: Semafor, Business Insider

In February 2023, Musk doubled down, saying OpenAI as it exists today 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.

Source: Twitter

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.

Source: Twitter

Musk turned his complaints into a lawsuit but has since dropped it.

He sued OpenAI, Altman, and cofounder Greg Brockman, alleging that the company's direction in recent years has violated its founding principles.

His 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 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 future of the case in a hearing.

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 last year 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."

Source: "On With Kara Swisher", Business Insider

Altman also referred to Musk as one of his heroes despite the fact Musk is "obviously attacking" OpenAI on Twitter.

In a March 2023 episode of Lex Fridman's podcast, Altman 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."

Source: Lex Fridman Podcast, Business Insider

Altman says he's learned some "super valuable" lessons from Musk.

In a May 2023 talk at University College London, Altman was asked what he's learned from various mentors, according to Fortune. 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 was one of more than 1,000 people who signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause on training advanced AI systems.

The letter, which also received signatures from several AI experts, cites concerns of AI's potential risks 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 recently reported.

Source: Future of Life Institute, Business Insider, The New Yorker, Business Insider

Musk since briefly unfollowed Altman on Twitter before following him again; separately, Altman later poked fun at Musk's claim to be a "free speech absolutist."

Twitter recently took aim at posts linking to rival Substack, 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.

Source: Big Tech Alert on Twitter, Twitter, Business Insider

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, 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 recently told The New Yorker 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.

Source: Bloomberg, Business Insider, The New Yorker

This article is part of "Workforce Innovation," a series exploring the trends and leaders shaping enterprise transformation.

Work doesn't work like it used to.

Remote and hybrid work setups are standard — and likely here to stay. Generative artificial intelligence is making its way into many offices, bringing opportunities but also concerns that, as these bots get better, demand for workers might drop.

In the C-suite, the rise of roles like chief digital officer and chief data officer reflects the need for diverse skills, from digital transformation to employee wellness and sustainability.

Meanwhile, many employers are paying more attention to how employees are feeling. Some leaders are openly discussing mental-health challenges and ways to manage stress and fight burnout.

And despite political pushback against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, many young people entering the workforce say they care about DEI.

Business Insider's "Workforce Innovation" series will explore how our jobs are changing by digging into four themes: AI, the changing C-suite, worker well-being, and DEI.

As part of the series, we're also convening a Workforce Innovation Board, which will be announced in August. The board will be composed of C-suite leaders from HR, strategy, technology, and DEI. The Board will convene regularly to share insights on the forces driving innovation where we work.

Artificial intelligence will be a job killer. AI will become your digital assistant. AI will take over everything. The variety of predictions about what AI will mean for the workplace — and beyond — is wide. And while it's too early to say with certainty how the technology will remake our 9-to-5s, many experts say there will be big changes.

AI could help train workers. And it could help weaker performers get better at their jobs. It could help boost overall productivity. As a result, companies are fighting for workers who can develop AI models.

Daron Acemoglu, an institute professor in the economics department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told BI he agreed with the notion that AI could represent one of the biggest changes since the rise of the internet. Yet he said it's unclear how reliable the technology would be at doing parts of — or all of — people's jobs.

Acemoglu said that some employers rushing to swap people for bots might realize that some AI tools lack the versatility of humans.

"These models have very limited capabilities," he said. "So if you adopt them too quickly and without enough thought, you might actually not get anything like the productivity boosts that you were expecting."

Acemoglu said it's likely some workers — particularly at the high end of the pay scale — would have AI assistants to help them get more done. For others, especially office workers earning middle-class or lower-middle-class incomes, it's unknown how AI might help or hurt.

"Whether that person is ever going to have any type of help from AI or whether it's going to be his replacement being trained by AI, we'll have to see," he said.

The C-suite is getting more crowded, and jobs like chief growth officer and chief AI officer are becoming more common.

The rapid evolution of technology requires corporate leaders to elevate more players to the C-suite to help manage it all, according to Ty Wiggins, the global lead of the CEO- and executive-transitions practice at the recruiting firm Russell Reynolds Associates.

Increasing amounts of data and the emergence of AI, Wiggins told BI, require companies to have roles beyond chief information officer or chief technology officer. It wasn't long ago, he said, that tech functions might have simply fallen under a chief operating officer or a chief financial officer.

Corporate chiefs now need to have closer connections to different aspects of the business — especially emerging ones like AI, Wiggins said.

"If that function is not reporting directly into you, you are two steps away from something that's moving so quickly that has a significant impact on the organization and your performance as CEO," he said.

Wiggins, the author of "The New CEO," said the C-suite continues to shift away from a place focused on reporting about various aspects of a company to becoming the "top team" tasked with helping the CEO solve the biggest problems facing an organization.

"The C-suite is no longer just a reporting body," he said. It's not enough for CFOs to pump out financial reports or the head of human resources to lobby for increased hiring, Wiggins said.

"There is an enormous pressure now on C-suite executives to really move from being a technical expert to a technical leader of other experts and to join the C-suite in a way that means that they can contribute to the other functions," he added.

The well-being of workers has drawn greater attention since the pandemic. Many employees report feeling stressed out. And various mental-health challenges are hitting workers — and businesses, as a result. Depression and anxiety alone sap the global economy of an estimated 12 billion productive workdays each year, the World Health Organization says, adding that the annual cost of that reduced output totals almost $1 trillion.

Carly Holm, the founder and CEO of Humani HR, a consulting firm, told BI that challenges around workers' mental health are bigger than ever. Yet, as the problems grow, more companies are looking at narrower interventions over a one-size-fits-all program, like offering counseling services that not everyone will want to use.

"A gym membership may be great for some people, but other people may not be interested in going to a gym," she said.

A better approach, Holm said, is talking to employees about their needs. Often, this involves something that's not expensive or even difficult to implement, such as flexible work schedules. Or it could involve offering wellness days in addition to vacation days.

Business leaders often consider extra days off a major expense, she added. But that extra time away, Holm said, is correlated with improved productivity and business performance.

"Having that flexible workplace so that people can kind of merge life and work, I think, really goes a long way," she said.

Employers also can adjust policies that might not be working, Holm said. Unlimited paid time off sounds great, but if workers don't use it, they lose the chance to recover. Instead, she said, setting a minimum PTO might be a better approach. Some employers, Holm said, are telling workers they need to take a week or two in a row — and not just a day or two here and there.

"They see the value and getting their employees to unplug," she said.

"The data is clear: When your employees are healthy, when they are happy, they're going to work better," Holm said.

DEI feels like a buzzword gone bad. Companies that a few years ago were happy to talk about their efforts to make their workplaces more equitable are now far less likely to mention DEI in quarterly earnings calls. Some companies have also been cutting DEI jobs.

It's a notable about-face. DEI initiatives rose toward the top of many corporate to-do lists after George Floyd's murder in 2020 and the racial reckoning that followed. Between 2020 and 2021, the role of chief diversity officer was the fastest-growing title in the C-suite. But by 2022, hiring started to slip for such jobs, according to LinkedIn data. In the years since, DEI has become a political wedge.

"There's a clear backlash right now," Regina Lawless, the former head of DEI at Instagram and author of "Do You," told BI.

She said companies would have to choose how they want to continue to do this work. Lawless said companies were right to ask about the impact of their DEI efforts because some initial steps, like creating coursework on race, could amount to little more than papering over a problem.

"A lot of companies just went at it in a performative way," she said. "We just throw in an employee resource group and think that's going to solve the very real issues of people from different backgrounds not having equitable experiences in the workplace."

Lawless said that as Gen Z took on a larger role in the workplace — they're expected to outnumber boomers among full-time US workers in 2024 — employers would have to be more thoughtful about addressing DEI. That's what many young workers are expecting, she said.

To progress and move beyond performative measures, companies will need to look under the hoods of the systems they use to hire, develop, promote, retain, and pay workers, Lawless said. Some of these procedures are leading, even if unintentionally, to inequitable outcomes, she said. In other cases, some people in charge simply have undue power, Lawless added.

"When you give your managers too much discretion, and there aren't checks and balances, that's when bias has the opportunity to creep in," she said. Lawless added that managers needed training on inclusive leadership to get the most from diverse teams.

To move forward, Lawless said, more employers will need to dig deeper into the data and ensure that DEI teams are not the only ones tasked with promoting equitable experiences within an organization. It will have to become a shared responsibility, she said.

"The future of DEI," Lawless said, "does need to be more diffuse."