• Taylor Swift fans have named gathering outside of The Eras Tour venues to sing and dance "Taylor-gating."
• I tried it when I found myself in Edinburgh, where the UK leg of the tour kicked off.
• It was a surprisingly immersive experience. You could hear every song clearly through the speakers.

If you've never heard of "Taylor-gating," let me introduce the concept to you.

It's a trend that emerged quickly after Taylor Swift began touring with her blockbuster The Eras Tour last spring. Fans who missed out on tickets congregate in streets and parking lots near the concert venues.

They sing along and dance to their favorite song blasting from the stadium speakers — enjoying the concert without paying for a ticket.

There are many reasons why people "Taylor-gate." Some might have missed out on getting tickets because of the technical difficulties they experienced on sites like Ticketmaster or because the ticket prices were too high.

In my case, it was because I happened to find myself in the same city as The Eras Tour and had a free evening.

Even though I have tickets for one of the "Fortnight" singer's upcoming shows at Wembley Stadium in London, I traveled to Edinburgh the night Swift kicked off the UK leg of The Eras Tour.

It was mainly to report Swift's profound economic impact on the UK, as the 15-show tour is expected to boost the UK economy by £997 million ($1.26 billion).

However, when I wrapped up for the day, having spoken to local business owners in the city and countless fans outside the stadium, I decided to stick around out of curiosity.

'This is the best concert I've ever been to — and I'm not even inside'

"Taylor-gating" has been popularized thanks to Tiktok, where fans have shared their experiences of enjoying the concert from outside the stadiums over the last year.

One video showing hordes of fans passionately singing along to Swift's hit " 22" outside the gates of Philadelphia's Lincoln Financial Field last year has accrued nearly seven million views. At a Sydney concert, Australian fans were also inspired, showing up in their hundreds to dance and sing outside the concert venue.

It's clear that fans in the UK also got the memo.

"This is the best concert I've ever been to — and I'm not even inside!" I heard one girl exclaim to her parents as she returned to sit beside them after dancing in a circle with other middle school-aged kids.

Meanwhile, others who had tickets for subsequent nights of the show also chose to spend their night experiencing the concert from the outside.

Amanda, 40, who had traveled from the US with her daughter Maddie, 20, were due to attend the second UK concert the following day. She told said that she was just as surprised as anyone to find herself there when she could be exploring Edinburgh or enjoying a nice dinner.

"I wouldn't do this for just any artist," Amanda said.

Despite being outside, I felt like I was part of the concert

I was only going to stay for a little while, having noticed that as the time approached Swift's call time, hundreds of people were setting down picnic blankets on the large field behind the stadium.

But as soon as the opening notes of the iconic medley that starts the almost three-and-a-half-hour set began, I got swept up in the excitement and ended up staying for nearly the entire show.

Swift and her band could be heard loud and clear from the steps opposite the stadium where I decided to set up camp for the evening. Even her interludes to the audience came out crisply over the stadium speakers, making me feel like I was a part of the crowd she was addressing.

There was one downside

As she swept through her many musical eras, beginning with her superstar-cementing "Lover" album, followed by the up-tempo "Fearless," "Red," "Speak Now," and "Reputation" acts, those around me took to their feet, dancing and singing along.

It was a shame that Swift's segue into the more subdued combined "Folklore" and "Evermore" set coincided with a sharp drop in temperature and strong winds that brought down the energy outside. With no stadium lights keeping us warm, I noticed that many people had chosen this point to pack up and leave.

But if "Taylor-gating" is your only opportunity to experience The Eras Tour — which Swift has confirmed will not extend past its final date in December — I would recommend it. Just remember to bring layers.

• Running and rucking are both trendy in the fitness world.
• They both offer various cardiovascular benefits and can boost mood. 
• Experts said the benefits are similar so go with whichever one you enjoy more. 

Running and rucking are hot in the fitness world right now. If you're deciding between the two, experts told Business Insider to do whichever you enjoy more because both provide similar benefits.

Running, a mainstay in the fitness world, only continues to grow in popularity. Last year's New York City Marathon was the largest ever, with 51,933 runners, an increase of about 4,000 from 2022. And 165,000 people have applied for the 2024 race, the second most ever, behind only 2020, ABC 7 NY reported.

Meanwhile rucking, which involves walking or jogging with a weighted backpack, has become one of the buzziest trends in fitness. Guy Fieri said he lost 30 pounds over the last few years by hiking with a weighted vest uphill a few times a week (alongside eating a healthy diet), and it's beloved by Silicon Valley elites and legendary CrossFitters.

Rucking and running are both great aerobic exercises

Aerobic exercise, which both activities count as, can increase cardiovascular fitness, endurance, reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, and improve risk factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol, and insulin sensitivity, Dr. Allison Zielinski, a cardiologist and co-director of the sports cardiology program at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, told BI.

Higher levels of fitness are also linked to a longer lifespan, she said: Cardio lowers the risk of early death from any cause.

Luke Worthington, a top trainer and sports scientist whose clients include Naomi Campbell and Dakota Fanning, told BI that walking and running can improve body composition.

There are also some "hidden benefits," he said. Rotating your pelvis and ribcage, which you automatically do when you walk or run, can help the digestive system run more smoothly and improve the movement of lymphatic fluids.

Walking outdoors can also boost your mood and calm the nervous system. The adjustment and re-adjustment that the eyes and brain continually make when walking or running has been shown to improve parasympathetic nervous system activity, Worthington said.

Carrying weight is good for bone health

The biggest difference between rucking and running is the weight-carrying component. Walking with an additional load requires more work from the cardiovascular system and some of your muscles than unloaded walking, Zielinski said. So it uses up more energy and burns more calories.

But the health benefit or quantity of fat you lose from rucking and running will depend on factors like speed, terrain, hill grade, duration, and how much load you carry, she said. You're going to get more of a workout from sprinting up a hill than you would from strolling with five pounds on your back, for instance.

Regardless, carrying a load, which humans have done for centuries, can be beneficial for bone health, Worthington said. Applying force along the length of long bones, known as axial loading of the skeleton, is really great for maintaining bone and mass density, he said.

And because adding weight feels more difficult, it can create a higher sense of achievement, Worthington said.

Cardio won't help you build muscle

Worthington said that neither exercise would have any noticeable impact on building muscle or weight loss.

Increasing muscle mass requires three things: A calorie surplus (because you can't make something out of nothing), adequate protein, (the building blocks of muscle tissue), and gradually increasing workload over time, (whether through increased weight or mechanical tension), Worthington said.

Choose whatever you're likely to do regularly

If you're looking to establish an exercise regime, start slow and aim to be consistent, the experts recommended.

"I would say that for people who are not exercising, starting with walking, adding some grade, and then once they kind of get comfortable with that and feel like that's not very hard anymore, then adding a little bit of weight can up the intensity," Zielinski said. This might be easier on the joints than increasing speed.

Worthington said to pick whichever you enjoy more and are likely to do regularly. "Lots of different training modalities 'work' — the biggest issue people have is not doing them for long enough to actually allow them to," he said.

• A landmark study suggested we eat about 500 extra calories per day on ultra-processed diets.
• Scientists are working to disentangle why this happens.
• They're developing new recipes for ultra-processed foods they hope will be healthier.

It's been five years since nutrition scientist Kevin Hall made a startling discovery that changed the way we view ultra-processed foods.

Hall put 20 people — 10 women and 10 men — into a tightly controlled metabolic ward at the National Institutes of Health and watched what they ate for a month. Half the time, the study subjects were given only fresh, unprocessed foods, like Greek yogurt with fruit and nuts for breakfast, or a broccoli and beef stir-fry for dinner. For the other half of the month, they were offered the same amount of calories and key nutrients every day, but from factory foods like turkey bacon, English muffins, and chicken nuggets.

At the end of the month, the evidence was conclusive and damning: people who eat ultra-processed diets consume more calories, and gain more weight, without trying. It was the first randomized controlled study of its kind, and it changed the way we view ultra-processed foods. "Whole" food and "plant-based" diets took off, and "clean" eating has become trendier than ever, as people try to aggressively limit their intake of packaged goods.

But discovering that people eat about 500 extra calories per day on an ultra-processed diet didn't convince Hall that convenience foods should be universally shunned.

"What we're trying to figure out is, very specifically, what is it about ultra-processed foods that seems to drive over-consumption and weight gain?" Hall told Business Insider.

He wants to understand precisely why ultra-processed foods do what they do and what—if anything—we can do to make them healthier.

"If you can avoid them, that's wonderful, but most people can't," he said.

So, for over a year now, he's methodically invited 18 volunteers back to his special Bethesda, Maryland lab, to try out some newly formulated ultra-processed meals. By the time the study's over, in 2025, at least 36 people will have tried out the reformulated foods, and been monitored for weight gain, as well as hormonal changes.

Hall's testing out two big ideas, hoping that perhaps by baking some more of the bedrock concepts of nutrition science into ultra-processed eating, we'll be able to get smarter about our ultra-processed existence and make on-the-go eating healthier.

Ultra-processed foods attack our brains

We've known for a long time that ultra-processed foods are associated with all kinds of bad health outcomes, from more early death, to extra strokes, and additional heart attacks.

And we know that refined carbohydrates (white bread, sugar), syrupy beverages (soda, juice), and ultra-processed meats (hot dogs) are some of the most dangerous foods in the category.

But whether the entire category — all packaged, ultra-processed foods are inherently bad for us by nature — is still an open question.

One characteristic that separates many ultra-processed foods from their unprocessed counterparts is the calorie density. Each bite of an ultra-processed meal tends to have more calories in it, without nearly as much fiber as fresh fare. That may be part of the reason ultra-processed diets can lead to overeating, Hall said: simply because each bite is rich and high-fat, yet not very satiating.

Hall's second big hypothesis is that ultra-processed foods might drive people to eat more because they're "hyper-palatable," meaning they're rich in tantalizing combinations of fat and salt, or fat and sugar, or carbohydrates and salt.

Almost nothing in nature tastes that good to us — one of the only natural "hyper-palatable" foods is a mother's breast milk. "Breast milk can be sweet and fatty at the same time," Hall said. We may be evolutionarily attuned to find these rarer types of composed foods irresistible, a hard-wired survival instinct.

When we cook from scratch, it's near-impossible to include as much sodium and fat as factories do when fusing together ultra-processed foods. At home, combo dishes can still be hyper-palatable, but sugar and oils tend to bump up against watery vegetables and grains. In Hall's landmark 2019 study, only about 40% of the foods on the unprocessed diet were hyper-palatable, while roughly 70% of the foods on the ultra-processed diet were composed of these particularly "hyper-palatable" high ratios of salt, sugar, fat, and carbohydrates.

If the easiest, cheapest, quickest dinner option involves filling your plate with mouth-wateringly delicious but low-nutrition fare, that's exactly what you're going to do. The question is: can we do anything to make hyper-palatable foods a little less damaging?

Change the composition of your plate

For his new experiment, Hall is trying out a few different techniques to study where the link exists between ultra-processing and weight gain.

One idea: cutting back on "hyper-palatable" foods in some ultra-processed meals. So, while the participants may still consume more calories in each bite than they would when eating an unprocessed meal, they'll (perhaps) be less likely to overeat, since the foods won't be as irresistible.

Another idea is to cut calories by simply adding some non-starchy vegetables to a plate of ultra-processed foods.

"You end up with more salads, for example," he said.

If adding a side of veggies to a convenience meal ends up normalizing how many calories people eat, that could change the way we think about how we choose processed foods, and maybe even the way that manufacturers make them — if they want to change.

Can fast food ever be healthy food?

Hall has a more surgical technique he's trying out in the experiment, too. He's dissolving fiber supplements into some of the ultra-processed foods — stirring fiber powder into packaged yogurts, for example — to see if that curbs overeating and improves health outcomes.

This is a more straightfoward idea, and one that could be picked up by the food manufacturing industry if it shows promise.(Already, big food companies including Nestle are refomulating some packaged foods like frozen pizzas to include more fiber and protein, targeting patients on appetite-supressing GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic.)

If ultra-processed foods can actually be reformulated for health, I imagine something more idyllic than just some extra fiber sprinkled into frozen pizzas and yogurts. What about aisles of packaged goods with more beans, nuts, seeds, and less sugar in them than before? UPFs could also take a nod from traditional diets that we know work well, like Mediterranean foods rich in olive oil, lentils, chickpeas, and citrus, which are all relatively shelf-stable items that experts agree are good for your heart and your longevity. People could eat rice and beans out of a bag, or enjoy a side of vacuum-packed veggies, instead of potato chips. Those would be more health-forward choices than a "plant-based" treat like a high-fat pastry, no matter whether it is homemade or factory-built.

"All the things that we've known about for a long time," are still worth taking into consideration, Hall says, no matter how processed your diet is. Seek out nuts, seeds, whole grains like oats or quinoa, black beans, hummus, lentils, and — yes — unprocessed fresh veggies and fruit when you can. Avoid sugary snacks and refined grains. These are "all the things that the dietary guidelines already discuss ad nauseam."

• New York City received over 630,000 applications to join its waitlist for federal housing vouchers.
• But the city will issue just 20,000 new vouchers, amid a severe housing affordability crisis.
• A third of New Yorkers spend more than 50% of their income on rent.

Finding an affordable apartment in New York City has become ever more challenging for low-income people — and an expansion of key federal assistance isn't likely to help much.

When the city opened its waitlist for housing choice vouchers for the first time in 15 years earlier this month, it was flooded with more than 630,000 applications for the federal rental assistance program, Gothamist reported.

To be eligible, individuals can make no more than $54,350 a year, and families of four can't make more than $77,650. But the city is capping the waitlist at 200,000 applicants, selected randomly. Ultimately, though, it will only issue 20,000 new vouchers, bringing the total number of vouchers up from about 96,000 to about 115,000, the New York City Housing Authority said. This won't happen overnight — the vouchers will be issued at a rate of about 1,000 a month. And those on the waitlist have to reapply every two years.

As a result, just over 3% of those who've applied to be on the waitlist will end up snagging one of those 20,000 additional vouchers — about the same as the percentage who get accepted to Harvard University.

New York City has the largest housing voucher program in the country, but it still falls far short of need. Rents and home prices have skyrocketed in recent years, and increasing numbers of New Yorkers can no longer afford housing. More than half of New York City tenants are rent-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on rent, and a third of New Yorkers spend more than half of their income on rent.

Of course, this isn't just a New York problem. Communities all across the country are facing severe housing affordability crises and don't have sufficient vouchers. Half of renters across the US are rent-burdened.

A flawed system

Housing vouchers are the biggest and most effective housing assistance program in the country. They help about 5 million people afford their rent every year.

There's lots of evidence that vouchers effectively lower the risk of homelessness, reduce dangerous housing conditions like overcrowding, and even help kids do better in school. And they significantly lower recipients' rent burden. Voucher holders pay about 30% of their income toward rent, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development covers the rest — up to what it determines to be fair market rent.

But Congress severely underfunds the program. Just about one in four Americans who are eligible for a federal housing voucher gets one, and about 10 million additional low-income households across the US are going without the help they qualify for.

And once someone gets a voucher, it can be difficult to use. With rents soaring across the country, it can be hard to find a home that fits the government's definition of fair market rent. And voucher recipients have a limited amount of time — usually just a few months — to find a home before they lose their voucher.

Discrimination against housing voucher holders by landlords is pervasive, even in places that prohibit it. Some of the resistance to vouchers from landlords has to do with the system's burdensome administrative processes that can make accepting a voucher costly and inefficient. For example, homes must be inspected by the local housing authority to make sure they meet a slew of health and safety standards. But that process can create lengthy delays, cause landlords to keep a unit empty and miss out on rent payments, and ultimately result in the voucher holder losing out on the home.

Fully funding housing vouchers is key. But the root of the problem in New York and elsewhere is a lack of housing supply. Until New York has many more homes, its vouchers won't be able to keep up.

Are you a New York City housing voucher recipient or a landlord who's struggled with the housing voucher program? Reach out to this reporter at erelman@businessinsider.com.

• I've been with my boyfriend for 12 years and have no plans of getting married. 
• We own a home together and are listed on each other's wills. 
• We are committed to each other, but people think that because we won't marry we are not. 

On a episode of "Abbott Elementary," outspoken teacher Melissa Schemmenti's doting boyfriend Gary heavily hints at planning a wedding proposal, which she insists she doesn't want. She tells him it would take a miracle for her to get married again. Thinking he's found such a miracle, Gary gets Philadelphia Eagles player Jalen Hurts to help him make the proposal.

When she turns him down, he's shocked and devastated, and though she sticks to her principles, she's clearly sad to be disappointing him and losing an otherwise great relationship. As I watched them part ways, I screamed at my TV: You can be in a happy, loving relationship without being married or engaged!

I know because my 12 year relationship is like any other stable, long-term one. My boyfriend and I jointly own a home, are listed in each other's wills, take vacations together, and are waiting to adopt a child. We are as committed to one another as we could be, but to many, what we have doesn't really count.

Marrige is seen as the goal

Even in 2024, marriage is still seen as the ultimate achievement in the game of love. The message that marriage is the endpoint to which all couples, no matter their sexual orientation, should aspire is ubiquitous. Witness the media frenzy about whether Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce are planning to get engaged, as if that act would ensure their relationship's longevity.

On our first date in 2012, Drew charmed me with his sense of humor and outrageous stories. Right away, we were smitten and moved in together a little over a year later. If we'd tied the knot then, I would've been saying "I do" before discovering many things about him that have only deepened my love. I wouldn't have known what it was like to support him through his best friend's death from cancer or how tenderly he treated me after I spent six hours solo in the emergency room during my pandemic miscarriage. I wouldn't have known how much I'd have to rely on his emotional support when I became my mom's caregiver last summer.

Every time I see a social media post with a triumphant woman's hand thrust toward the camera, a diamond engagement ring sparkling, I cringe — not because I don't believe in love, but precisely because I do. Elevating walking down the aisle as a goal turns an expansive emotion into a flashy celebration, as if romance were simply the joining of two personal brands rather than two complex human beings.

I want to celebrate other relationship milestones

What if we celebrated other kinds of relationship milestones, like seeing the other person cry, getting a pet, or figuring out how to make up after a fight and truly mean it? What if we saw marriage as one of many ways of honoring love rather than the only socially sanctioned one?

When we make a single ceremony the apotheosis of something far more nuanced, we miss out on celebrating the more intimate, ever-changing pleasures of love as they deepen. Like the fictional Melissa and Doug, real-life couples also miss out on potential relationships that could bring boundless joy by fixating on hearing wedding bells over beating hearts.

Drew and I have decided that if we're still together in January 2027, we'll hold a 15th anniversary party. This will be a chance for us to be with friends and family to honor the layers of intimacy we've built while recognizing how fragile they are. In the meantime, we'll remake our love, kneading it into new shapes, patterns, and possibilities.

Rachel Kramer Bussel is the editor of over 70 anthologies, including the "Best Women's Erotica of the Year" series, and edits the Substack publication Open Secrets.Visit her website, rachelkramerbussel.com, and follow her on Twitter @raquelita and Instagram @rachelkramerbussel.

• Leah Mancuso lost 200 pounds in two years by adopting healthy eating habits and walking.
• Mancuso shifted from a diet of drive-thrus and freezer food to minimally processed meals.
• Her staple meals include eggs, cottage cheese bowls, sourdough sandwiches, and chicken with potatoes.

When Leah Mancuso started her weight loss journey in March 2022, she started small: eating one nutritious food a day and walking on the spot at home for 10 minutes.

As time went on, Mancuso, 35, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, began building up healthy habits, and two years later, the photographer had lost 200 pounds.

Previously, Mancuso mostly ate drive-thru meals and freezer food because she hated cooking — and still does.

"I try to eat mostly at least minimally processed foods, but also make it very, very easy because I don't like cooking," Mancuso told Business Insider.

So she developed new staple meals like cottage cheese bowls and chicken with potatoes.

"A lot of very simple things, but it felt like I'm eating real foods at least," Mancuso said.

Mancuso's diet shift comes amid increasing awareness of the link between ultra-processed foods and an array of health issues, from weight gain to heart disease, though researchers aren't entirely sure why.

Mancuso shared the easy, staple meals that helped her lose 200 pounds over two years.

1. Eggs

Mancuso's first diet change in March 2022 was eating eggs, which have since become her go-to breakfast, she said.

Her favorite combinations are:

• Eggs scrambled with cheese and cottage cheese, with fruit on the side
• Fried eggs, again with fruit on the side
• Poached eggs on sourdough toast

Eggs are a great source of protein, which helps keep you feeling full, as well as B vitamins, folate, and vitamin A.

2. Cottage cheese bowls

"I've had cottage cheese bowls most days," Mancuso said.

She said she sometimes eats cottage cheese as it is, but other times blends it into a smooth yoghurt-like consistency.

"I add maple syrup to sweeten and also sometimes add a flavored protein powder to add more protein," Mancuso said. "Then I top with granola and fruit."

Cottage cheese is naturally rich in protein and low in calories if you use a fat-free version, and thanks to social media, it's experiencing a renaissance.

3. Open sourdough sandwiches

Mancuso said she's been eating a lot of sourdough bread and enjoys topping slices with combinations such as:

• Salami, goat's cheese, and pesto
• Jam, ham, and goat's cheese
• Tuna mixed with mayonnaise and cottage cheese, with pickles on top

Sourdough bread is rich in nutrients and generally easier to digest than other forms of bread.

4. Chicken strips with potatoes

Healthy eating doesn't mean never using frozen ingredients.

Mancuso is a fan of organic frozen chicken strips. She usually serves them with a potato that she's chopped into pieces, sprayed with avocado oil, and cooked in the air fryer.

Mancuso admits she's not a huge fan of vegetables, but dietitians and nutritionists generally recommend creating plates that are 50% vegetables, 25% protein, and 25% starchy carbs.

5. Sausage and vegetable pasta

Mancuso sometimes uses protein pasta but is also a fan of sourdough noodles, she said.

Mancuso makes pasta dishes with pork or chicken sausages, vegetables such as broccoli, bell peppers, or riced cauliflower, and a sauce such as marinara or pesto blended with cottage cheese.

Mixing cottage cheese with a classic pasta sauce adds more protein and also creates a creamy texture.

Mancuso hasn't cut out all her favorite foods

Mancuso knew that her lifestyle had to be sustainable and achievable to maintain her weight loss, so she didn't try to eliminate all her favorite foods or cook elaborate dishes.

"I also love bacon and will eat it like a meal," Mancuso joked.

But instead of getting takeout on her own, she now only enjoys those less nutritious foods in a social setting.

"I used to spend a lot of time just getting fast food and eating it by myself in my room, and that's just not healthy for us for a lot of reasons," she said. "Instead I decided to enjoy them when I'm with people and with community."

• Wombo AI is an app that makes generative images of celebrities. 
• It's gone viral for making images of Donald Trump, Drake, and Travis Kelce — with pregnant bellies
• Yes, this very stupid. So what?

What is it about a slightly crummy AI-generated video of Donald Trump and Joe Biden discussing hardcore bands that is incredibly hilarious, while Apple's new AI forced-whimsy "Genmoji" just … isn't?

The more advanced generative AI gets, somehow … the stupider stuff makes us laugh more. Interesting, no?

Almost exactly a year ago, Max Read wrote about how AI is good for "funposting" (I imagine this term started as something not appropriate for a family newspaper). Read looked at some of the early AI things that had delighted us: the pope in a puffer coat and Will Smith eating spaghetti. Those things were so amusing because they had the right placement on a matrix of human stupidity vs. machine intelligence: making the smart machine do something very stupid.

These "high human stupidity/high machine intelligence" jokes are the sweet spot, although there is also room for "high human stupidity/low machine intelligence" jokes, too. The best recent example of this would be the bad Google AI search result answers that went viral, telling people to eat 1-2 rocks per day or put glue in their pizza.

A year is a long time in AI, and I was curious if Read's analysis of what made for a funny AI joke had significantly changed. Will Smith eating spaghetti, for example, is no longer weird and uncanny — it actually looks decent now.

The fact that generative AI is much "better" than a year ago, however, hasn't stopped AI from being funny. In fact, it's made it easier to do stupid, silly things.

This explains why recently, my Instagram keeps serving me viral videos of pregnant male celebrities, like this:

(I highly recommend you also play the video to listen to the AI-generated song.)

Wombo AI started in 2021 making consumer-facing apps that generated silly, memey, social media-ready images.

Their current app, Celeb Shot (which will be renamed Wombo soon) specializes in letting you add your own face to various photos with celebrities, or doing other things like making you look like a baby or have huge muscles.

Wombo's founder, Ben-Zion Benkhin, told me that they had stumbled into this new virality.

He came across an image of Snape pregnant and was inspired to try something new (male pregnancy, or "mpreg," in fan fiction is a fairly common trope — Snape in particular for some reason). "We're always experimenting with shit and trying to make stuff go viral," Benkhin said.

Indeed, they saw a big increase in shares on the Instagram and TikTok posts with these mpreg videos — which led to more downloads of their app. Making silly stupid stuff is good for business. (An update of the app that will allow users to put a photo of themselves proudly cradling a pregnant Trump or Drake will be out soon.)

I'm not sure what "mpreg Travis Kelce is going viral" means for the future — of AI or humanity. I do think that some of this stupid stuff is a coping mechanism for the more scary parts of AI. Sure, AI might kill us all one day, but at least we had some good memes.

• More recent college graduates are struggling to find jobs, and it could set them back for years. 
• The unemployment of recent graduates has been higher than the overall unemployment rate since 2021.
• Some graduates could eventually question whether their college degrees were worth it. 

When Lohanny Santos couldn't find a job, she started handing out resumes in person.

"This is not what I expected," the Gen Zer, who has a degree in communication and media studies, said in a January TikTok video.

Santos isn't alone. New college graduates are having a harder time finding work, and as a result, some of them could see their careers and earnings take a hit for years.

Every month since January 2021, the unemployment rate of "recent college graduates" between the ages of 22 and 27 has been higher than the overall US unemployment rate, according to New York Fed data. Meaning that recent college graduates have been more likely to be unemployed than the broader population.

This isn't normal. Between 1990 and 2013, the recent grad jobless rate was never higher than the overall unemployment rate.

Last November, the recent graduate unemployment rate was 5% compared to the 3.7% overall rate — the most the recent grad rate has exceeded the overall rate in the over three decades of NY Fed data. Excluding 2020 and 2021 — when the pandemic took a toll on the job market — the 5% jobless rate for recent graduates was the highest since March 2015. As of the most recent March data, the jobless rate for recent grads was 4.7%, compared to the 3.7% rate for all workers.

Internships aren't leading to job offers, start dates are being pushed back as much as a year, and applicants are competing for a limited number of jobs. Hiring cutbacks in popular industries like tech, finance, and consulting are working against new graduates. For instance, Meta — among the top employers for Rice University's graduates in 2022 — didn't hire any graduates last year, Bloomberg reported.

However, the hiring slowdown is bigger than these three industries. As of March, hiring on LinkedIn was down compared to the prior year in each of the 20 industries measured, including education, construction, and healthcare. A National Association of Colleges and Employers survey of 226 employers across several industries conducted this past spring found that employers collectively planned to hire nearly 6% fewer new college graduates than they did the previous year.

This bumpy start to new grads' careers could have a lasting impact on their earnings.

For one, some of them could end up taking jobs in lower-paying fields outside their area of study. Per the NY Fed, about 41% of recent graduates were "underemployed" as of March — meaning they had jobs that typically don't require a college degree. What's more, a report published in February by the data research firms Burning Glass Institute and the Strada Education Foundation found that nearly three-quarters of people who don't land college-level jobs in their first year after graduating end up stuck in a job they're overqualified for 10 years later.

Additionally, researchers have found that young people who graduate into challenging job markets can see their earnings negatively impacted for at least a decade — the struggles of millennials who started their careers during the Great Recession have been well documented. While Gen Zers aren't graduating during a recession, some of them could face similar hurdles to the generation before them.

The slowing job market is hitting recent graduates the hardest

While layoffs remain low, and the US continues to add hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, the labor market isn't quite as hot as it was a few years ago. Job openings have fallen from the record levels reached in 2022, businesses are hiring less, and as a result, workers aren't switching jobs at the same rate they did during the Great Resignation.

"It's the new normal where employers are slower to fire, slower to hire, and workers are slower to switch jobs," Julia Pollak, the chief economist for ZipRecruiter, previously told Business Insider.

This new normal has worked out OK for some Americans, but it's been particularly tough on new college graduates.

In an economy where hiring and job-switching are slowing, a lot of workers are effectively stuck in place. The young workers who might have switched jobs — and effectively created a new entry-level job opening for someone else — have had a harder time doing so. At the same time, the young workers who might have gotten a promotion — and then been replaced by a new entry-level hire — aren't getting those promotions at the rate they did a year or two ago.

If you already have a job, you can keep collecting paychecks and cross your fingers that layoffs don't pick up. But if you don't, you're in a tougher spot.

The current labor market is leaving some recent grads with few paths into the workforce, and the jobs that are out there have become more competitive. It's even tougher if you want a remote role.

Americans seem to sense that it's not the best time to job hunt. A monthly New York Fed survey asks respondents to estimate the chance that, if they lost their job today, they'd be able to find a new job they would accept in the next three months. As of the recently released May data, the average probability was about 52%. While this was higher than the April and March figures, it was lower than any month between January 2015 and March 2020 — when the pandemic caused job-finding expectations to temporarily plummet.

However, in reality, it's not taking most unemployed Americans considerably longer to find work than it did a year or two ago. It's the newest members of the labor force — many of them recent college grads — who are having a harder time.

A Goldman Sachs report published in May found that "experienced" US workers who became unemployed over the past year have continued to find new jobs "at or above pre-pandemic rates." However, "new entrants" to the labor market who've entered unemployment have found jobs at considerably lower rates than they did two years ago and before the pandemic.

"The labor market remains strong overall, though with some soft spots, most notably the low hiring rate, whose impact falls most heavily on new entrants to the workforce," Goldman Sachs economist Elise Peng wrote in the report.

Job search struggles could lead some graduates to question the value of their degree

To be sure, many of the new college graduates who are struggling to find work will likely eventually find employment. When including college graduates of all ages, this group has a lower unemployment rate than the average worker, and the average college graduate still earns considerably more than workers without a degree.

While the tough job market could temporarily hurt some young graduates' earnings, there's reason to be optimistic that their finances could eventually recover. That's because some of the millennials who were impacted by the Great Recession early in their careers are now faring much better financially.

A Federal Reserve paper published in January found that, as of 2022, the inflation-adjusted household income of US millennials between the ages of 36 and 40 was 18% higher than that of the previous generation at the same age. Between the end of 2019 and 2023, millennials' wealth doubled, due in part to rising home values and stock prices.

In the years ahead, the more important question might not be whether college graduates can find jobs — but whether their college degrees are worth it. High college tuition costs have forced many students to take on student debt that can follow them for decades and stall their savings efforts. Additionally, more companies have become open to hiring candidates who don't have a college degree.

St. Louis Fed research published in 2019 found that the boost a college degree provides to one's income and wealth has declined over the past several decades.

Most new graduates may be quite a ways away from saying they regret going to college. But if the job market continues to prove frustrating, some of them may begin to wonder.

Are you a recent college graduate who's struggling to find a job? Are you willing to share your story? If so, contact this reporter at jzinkula@businessinsider.com.

• The average age of American millionaires has risen to 61 as of 2022, up from 57 in 1992.
• Younger workers struggle to amass wealth, leading to increased reliance on inheritances.
• Boomers' wealth accumulation is impacting economic factors like consumer spending and housing.

America's millionaires are getting older.

While it makes sense that time is often a crucial ingredient to accruing savings and assets, the average age of millionaires in the US has been rising faster than the average age of the overall population over the last three decades.

It's the age of geriatric millionaires, and it might point to overlapping issues: Younger workers can't amass wealth at the same rate they used to, and increasingly, the way to ascend to the ranks of the wealthy is to receive inheritances.

"Multi-generational wealth is doing fine, but first-generation people who are not on the wealth train are having a harder time getting on," Chuck Collins, the director of the program on inequality and co-editor of inequality.org at the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies, told Business Insider.

That's bad news for the American dream of hitting it big as a self-made entrepreneur. According to Forbes, a third of the people on its latest billionaire list inherited all or most of their wealth; in its 2001 ranking, just five out of the 490 ranked billionaires were listed as having inherited their wealth. And in many cases, those individuals are inheriting that wealth much later in life.

"The millionaires are aging and they're not passing that wealth down the generational line or they're passing it on much later in life. Even the recipients are old," Collins said said.

These forces are combining to concentrate an increasing share of wealth in the hands of America's octogenarians. It could spell trouble for the economy — and see even more power wielded by a cohort that might not be here to see how it plays out.

How millionaires are changing

Since 1992, the average age of the country's millionaires has been going up. We looked at Survey of Consumer Finances data for Americans with net worths of $1 million or over in 2022 dollars, and compared their demographics from 2022 — the most recent year we have data for — and 1992.

In 1992, the average millionaire was around 57 years old. By 2022, the average millionaire was around 61 years old. That means that younger millionaires aren't joining their ranks fast enough to keep the average age steady.

Of course, some of that can be chalked up to aging populations. After all, the US has been getting older, and geriatric Americans are holding more power than ever before. So, to parse out how millionaires stack up to the rest of the population, we looked at age breakdowns in both 1992 and 2022.

Here's what the general population — and millionaires — looked like in 1992. Millionaires are overrepresented beginning around age 50, but track pretty cleanly with the cohort in their 40's.

Comparatively, millionaires were more overrepresented in the 60+ cohort as of 2022.

In addition to millionaires with net worths of more than $1 million, Americans who make an annual salary of $1 million are also skewing older.

Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, analyzed IRS SOI data and found that in 2011, about 59,500 Americans 65 and over reported earning over $1 million; as of 2021, that's nearly quadrupled, with just under 218,500 Americans 65 and older earning over $1 million.

"We are collecting a good portion of our tax revenue from these folks — the older folks who typically are higher income or higher net worth who tend to have higher incomes — which is good; that obviously underscores the progressivity of the system," Watson said. "At the same time, we do have a lot of provisions in our fiscal system that benefit these folks."

What does it mean to have so many older millionaires?

Of course, that doesn't mean the picture is completely bleak for younger Americans. Pandemic stimulus, coupled with an unprecedented labor market, real estate, and stock gains, has meant that millennials across the income spectrum were able to double their wealth from 2019 to 2023.

According to our Business Insider's analysis, 9.8% of millionaires are 35 to 44 years old. That's a respectable chunk of 30-somethings and 40-somethings who can claim millionaire status. Meanwhile, around 19% of millionaires are 45 to 54 years old.

Still, the average net worth for millennials sits at around $128,000 compared to around $1.2 million for baby boomers, and many millennials do not feel financially secure amid high housing costs and student loan debt loads.

Gen Xers are dealing with their own economic precarity meanwhile. They hold the most liabilities out of any generation, and are spending the most on housing and shelter out of all cohorts. Gen Xers are also the first generation to contend with overlapping retirement crises, as they've been left to pick up the bill for their retirement years and might also face reduced Social Security. Both generations have dealt with wages that haven't kept pace with productivity.

The growing accumulation of wealth in older hands impacts consumer spending, employment, housing, and more.

The boomer generation holds half of the combined net worth in the US, and was behind 22% of all spending in 2022, according to the Labor Department's September survey of consumer expenditures.

That's propped up consumer spending, even as the savings rate has dropped and inflation has remained stubbornly high. It's also impacted the labor market, with jobs that cater to the boomers taking off.

"Thanks to all the retired and retiring seniors, spending on air transportation, hotels & motels, food, and health care services all have been soaring to new or near record highs," veteran market strategist Ed Yardeni wrote earlier this year. "That's because seniors are traveling more, dining out more, and visiting their health care providers more. As a result, payroll employment in all these industries continues to rise to record highs."

And boomers aren't just living it up on vacation. They're also holding onto some of their largest and most valuable assets: Big homes.

A growing number of baby boomers are keeping their large homes for longer, constraining the supply available for younger families. Analysis of US Census data by Redfin found that 28% of homes across the US with three or more bedrooms are owned by empty nesters between 60 and 78 years old. That's double the percentage of millennials with children who own similarly sized homes.

Lastly, the age of geriatric millionaires has the potential to create what Chuck Collins at the Institute for Policy Studies called the "King Charles effect," referring to King Charles III of the United Kingdom, who ascended the throne at the age of 73.

"Instead of 60-year-olds giving to 30-year-olds, it's going to be 90-year-olds giving to 60-year-olds — meaning that because these wealthy folks are holding onto wealth longer, that intergenerational wealth transfer that we've all heard about is later in life for a lot of people," Collins said.

"It's very different to inherit a couple million dollars when you're in your twenties than it is in your sixties. You've already made a lot of decisions in your life."

• Taiwan recently unveiled a kamikaze boat many times larger than Ukraine's successful drones.
• Naval drones will be key if Taiwan hopes to defeat a Chinese invasion.
• It can succeed by showing China that a battle for Taiwan is simply too bloody and risky.

Taking a cue from Ukraine's use of naval drones to offset a superior Russian fleet, Taiwan has unveiled a much larger unmanned kamikaze boat that could devastate a Chinese amphibious force.

Taiwanese media describe a 20-ton robot vessel that's 55-feet-long, 12-feet-wide, and with a draft of about 3 feet. "The vessel's top speed exceeds 30 knots (55.56 km/h), and it can cover a range of over 300 miles (555.6 km) with a fuel capacity of 1,300 liters," according to Taiwan's Liberty Times newspaper. "What's remarkable is its ability to navigate autonomously, even without GPS or communication equipment, thanks to its advanced onboard computer systems. Its potential military applications range from mine clearance and minesweeping to suicide missions."

The unmanned surface vessel, or USV, was revealed June 2 while Taiwanese leaders attended the shipyard christening of a new frigate and other manned vessels. Photographs show a low, streamlined black boat with bright orange stripes.

The USV has been a "universal test platform," and Taiwanese officials have not said whether this design will stay experimental or go into mass production to create a horde of robot explosive boats. But if not this one, Taiwan will certainly field some kind of unmanned attack boat to try to stop a Chinese invasion or blockade.

US officials have already spoken of a "hellscape" strategy that would use drones to turn the Taiwan Straits into a graveyard. Exactly what this entails is classified. But Adm. Samuel Paparo, chief of US Indo-Pacific Command, told a Washington Post reporter last month that "as soon as China's invasion fleet begins moving across the 100-mile waterway that separates China and Taiwan, the US military would deploy thousands of unmanned submarines, unmanned surface ships and aerial drones to flood the area and give Taiwanese, US and partner forces time to mount a full response."

"I want to turn the Taiwan Strait into an unmanned hellscape using a number of classified capabilities," Paparo said. "So that I can make their lives utterly miserable for a month, which buys me the time for the rest of everything."

The threat to attack a Chinese invasion force right away may not be achievable, however. In May, China's military surrounded Taiwan and practiced attack drills, the kind of large-scale exercise that could become cover for a military operation like a beach assault.

Taiwan may have better luck in the water than in the air. Taiwan's attempt to develop a medium-altitude, long-endurance drone — along the lines of the US MQ-9 Reaper — has run into developmental difficulties. The unmanned aircraft has yet to pass its combat readiness test, leading Taiwan to order more American-made MQ-9B SeaGuardians, a maritime version of the Reaper.

Both Taiwan and America are looking to what has become the gold standard in naval drone warfare: Ukraine's campaign in the Black Sea. Vastly outnumbered and outgunned by Russia's navy, and with a long coastline to defend, Ukraine could have been bled white trying to defend against Russian amphibious invasions and coastal bombardment.

Instead, Russia's Black Sea Fleet has retreated from Ukrainian waters. In part this is because of land-based anti-ship missiles such as the Neptune, which sank the cruiser and Black Sea Fleet flagship Moskva in 2022. But mostly it's because of robot boats that have relentlessly stalked Russian warships on the sea and even in port. In November 2023, for example, Ukrainian Magura sea drones sank or damaged two Russian landing craft and a missile corvette docked in Crimean ports and shipyards.

The Magura appears to be much smaller than the Taiwanese USV, at about 18 feet long. It weighs about a ton, can carry a 400-pound warhead, and had a range of 500 miles, with batteries sufficient for 60 hours of operation.

This is a classic case of asymmetric warfare: though vastly outnumbered in conventional military resources, Ukraine turned to cheap alternatives that could be manufactured by its own domestic arms industry and exploited the enemy fleet's vulnerability.

Taiwan faces a similar dilemma. With a population of just 24 million compared to China's 1.4 billion, and vastly less resources and manufacturing capacity, Taiwan probably can't prevail in a straight-up naval battle with Chinese naval, air and missile forces, not even with the help of allies Japan and the US.

But it doesn't have to win. It can succeed by showing China that a battle for Taiwan is simply too bloody and fraught with risk. Taiwan would need to sink or damage enough transport vessels that near the island to make a beach landing or blockade untenable. With insufficient troops, heavy weapons and supplies ashore, the beachhead would be vulnerable to being swept into the sea by a Taiwanese counterattack.

Similarly, enough kamikaze drones could force China's large fleet farther off-shore in hopes of creating openings for air drops of supplies from Taiwan's allies. Even then, China may have the sheer fleet size to strangle Taiwan.

This shows that drones will be an essential and low-cost way to stave off China.

Michael Peck is a defense writer whose work has appeared in Forbes, Defense News, Foreign Policy magazine, and other publications. He holds an MA in political science from Rutgers Univ. Follow him on Twitter and LinkedIn.