• Hackers infiltrated OpenAI in early 2023, but the company chose not to disclose the security breach.
• News of the hack has raised concerns that OpenAI is vulnerable to foreign agents, especially China.
• It's the latest in a string of bad news for the company.

The hits just keep on coming for booming tech giant OpenAI. The latest addition to its list of problems? Hackers.

OpenAI, despite its name, has developed a reputation for secrecy. But it was still surprising to learn that hackers gained entry to the company's internal messaging system all the way back in early 2023, stealing information related to its AI designs, and that the company never mentioned it to anyone.

Two people with knowledge of the incident told The New York Times that OpenAI executives decided not to publicly disclose the hacking because no customer or partner information was compromised. OpenAI also did not report the hack to the police or the FBI.

OpenAI told Business Insider that the company had "identified and fixed" the "underlying security issue" that led to the breach. The company said the hacker was a private individual without government affiliation and that no source code repositories were impacted.

Still, the hacking prompted concern inside and outside the company that OpenAI's security is too weak, leaving it open to foreign adversaries like China.

While the United States leads the global AI arms race, China is not far behind. US officials consider China's use of AI a major potential security threat. So the idea that OpenAI's data and systems are penetrable is worrisome.

Employees inside the company have also expressed concern about its attention to security. Leopold Aschenbrenner, a now former OpenAI board member, said the company fired him in April after he sent a memo detailing a "major security incident." He described the company's security as "egregiously insufficient" to protect against theft by foreign actors.

OpenAI has denied that it fired Aschenbrenner for raising security concerns.

Aschenbrenner was a member of the company's "superalignment" team, which worked to ensure the safe development of OpenAI's technology. A month after OpenAI fired Aschenbrenner, two more of the team's top members quit, and the team effectively dissolved.

One of them was OpenAI cofounder and chief scientist Ilya Sustkever. He announced his departure just six months after he helped spearhead OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's failed ouster, partly due to disagreements the two men had over the safety of the technology. Hours after Sustkever announced his departure, his colleague Jan Leike also left.

After the drama settled, last month OpenAI created a new safety and security committee, adding former NSA director Paul Nakasone to lead the group. Nakasone, now the newest OpenAI board member, is the former head of the US Cyber Command — the cybersecurity division of the Defense Department.

While Nakasone's presence signals that OpenAI is taking security more seriously, his addition was also not without controversy. Edward Snowden, the US whistleblower who leaked classified documents detailing government surveillance in 2013, said in a post on X that Nakosone's hiring was a "calculated betrayal to the rights of every person on Earth."

• Robert F Kennedy Jr. has said he would not "take sides" on 9/11 if elected president.
• Kennedy said he wished to restore trust with the American people "through honesty and transparency."
• Kennedy has previously spread a number of other wild conspiracy theories.

Independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. said on Friday that he would not "take sides" when it came to the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks if he won election to the White House in November.

"My take on 9/11: It's hard to tell what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't. But conspiracy theories flourish when the government routinely lies to the public," Kennedy wrote in a post on X.

"As president I won't take sides on 9/11 or any of the other debates. But I can promise… that I will open the files and usher in a new era of transparency," he added.

Kennedy's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, which was sent outside regular working hours.

The September 11 attacks were the deadliest terror attacks ever in the US.

Nearly 3,000 people were killed and thousands were injured when terrorists hijacked and crashed commercial jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

Kennedy said in a follow-up post that he had been referencing an excerpt from a recent CBS "60 Minutes" episode, which he said looked at "possible Saudi involvement in 9/11, sparking all kinds of speculation on X."

The episode focused on a newly released video of a Saudi intelligence officer filming in Washington, DC, in 1999.

In a third post, the long shot presidential candidate wrote, "Speculation about what our government may be covering up is rife outside the mainstream of our political culture."

The way to restore trust in the government, he said, "is through honesty and transparency."

"That is my promise, and that is what will resolve any questions about 9/11, UAPs, and other contentious topics. I am personally agnostic on those issues. My issue is TRANSPARENCY," he added.

It's not the first time Kennedy has promoted a conspiracy theory, having previously shared wild ideas ranging from how mass shootings are linked to prescription drugs to how certain chemicals in water impact the sexuality of children.

• Boeing's new flagship 777X aircraft is the first commercial plane with folding wingtips.
• Airport gate space concerns ignited the need for the new folding mechanism.
• The aircraft has garnered 481 orders from carriers such as British Airways, Emirates, and Lufthansa.

Boeing's latest addition to its growing fleet of commercial jets is the innovative 777X.

Boeing announced its next-generation widebody at the Dubai Airshow in 2013 as a bigger and more efficient version of its 777-300ER and its solution to the rival Airbus A350. Over a dozen global carriers, like British Airways, Emirates, and Lufthansa, have contributed to the 777X's 481-strong order book.

Boeing expects the plane to be certified by 2025, though it is already five years behind schedule and $1.5 billion in the hole due to design flaws, supply chain issues, and the pandemic, among other setbacks.

Emirates president Tim Clark, the biggest buyer of the 777X, with 205 on order, told The Air Current in June that the timeline will likely see a 2026 certification. Still, airlines remain confident that the new high-capacity flagship will replace older-generation widebodies as a more cost-efficient long-haul option.

That's thanks to its mammoth engines and wingspan, the latter sporting a revolutionary technology not yet seen in commercial aviation but necessary for the plane's success: folding wingtips.

The 777-9 is the largest commercial airplane in production and is based on Boeing's classic 777 but with modifications that enhance its size and efficiency.

The 777X will be available in two passenger variants, the larger 777-9 and the smaller 777-8, which can carry up to 426 and 384 passengers, respectively.

It will also have a freighter option called the 777F.

Its predecessor is Boeing's best-selling 777 variant, with over 800 units sold since 2000

This upgrade strategy means the 777X and the 777 are familiar to pilots and regulators, making certification easier than building a new plane and keeping airline costs down.

The 777X is operationally similar to the classic 777. Further, the 777X's flight deck resembles that of the 787. This plane-to-plane familiarity means pilots can cross-train on 777 and 787 aircraft with minimal training, saving airlines money.

Boeing is using four experimental 777X planes for its certification program. They have already flown thousands of hours across some 1,00 test flights.

Still, the 777X has key differences that set it apart from its predecessor, like its size, engines, and wings.

For example, the 777X's massive General Electric GE9X engines generate more than 100,000 pounds of thrust, making the GE9X the biggest and most powerful engine ever made for a commercial airliner.

Meanwhile, the 777X's 10-abreast seats, which are common on the classic 777, are more spacious thanks to its wider cabin. The 777X will also have bigger and better windows, which can be dimmed to a level of darkness not achievable on other widebodies.

The most distinctive feature of the 777X's design is its folding wingtips, a first in commercial aviation.

The design has never been seen on passenger planes but has found success in military aviation for almost 100 years to offset the limited parking space on air carriers, according to the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The idea to create folding wing tips stemmed from airport gate space limitations. Like pilot training, Boeing didn't want the new 777X to require costly airport infrastructure changes.

The 777X has a wingspan of 235 feet, 5 inches, which means it is too wide to fit into existing 777 airport gates. 

To combat the concern, Boeing created the folding mechanism that reduces the wingspan to 212 feet and 9 inches — the length of the 777's wings.

This allows the 777X to fit into gates capable of fitting the current 777 models without modifications or changes to the airport.

 

The airplane will not be limited to which airports it can operate out of, an issue the Airbus A380 faced after the superjumbo's debut in 2007.

At launch, many airports couldn't accommodate the A380 superjumbo without modifying the gates and building wider taxiways and runways, limiting where airlines could fly it. Boeing didn't want the same problem with its new flagship 777X.

While Boeing could have simply kept the wings the same length as the 777, it needed an extended wingspan to improve the plane's performance.

The 777X's wings are about 23 feet longer than the 777's, allowing the jet to generate more lift. According to Boeing, this increases efficiency by reducing fuel burn by about 10% compared to competing widebodies.

Though some might think widening the wingspan would create a heavier plane, Boeing has used a lightweight composite material for the 777X's wings.

The company said this strategy means the longer wings do not increase the jet's weight. The composite materials are also beneficial because they allow the wings to flex and bend during flight, which lowers the risk of damage.

The 777X's familiarity and size, the latter partly thanks to the wingtips, are big selling points against the rival A350.

Airbus launched the A350 in 2013, garring over 1,300 global orders. The plane is already flying passengers and is the 777X's biggest competitor.

The two families offer similarly giant cabins and good long-haul economics, but each has distinct differences that make it more or less favorable to certain airlines. For example, the A350 is smaller than the 777-9 model but longer-ranged and cheaper. 

It is also not mired with the same production problems as the 777X program, meaning it isn't sitting in production limbo costing Boeing and airlines millions.

While the 777X has been much hyped, airlines have voiced concerns over Boeing's ongoing production problems.

The 777X's size and efficiency make it particularly favorable for Middle Eastern carriers Emirates, Etihad, and Qatar because of their strong hub-and-spoke networks, which rely on big planes to shuttle as many people as possible between cities at once. 

All three plan to phase out older planes like the A380 and replace them with the more efficient 777X. However, according to Reuters, flying less efficient planes longer than expected is eating into airline bottom lines.

With hundreds of billions of dollars worth of orders on the line, there's much riding on the success of the new 777X flagship.

Boeing has been scrutinized since the January Alaska Airlines 737 Max door plug blowout, which questioned its ability to safely produce airplanes. That, combined with ongoing production issues on its 787 Dreamliners, too, has made certifying new planes even harder.

Still, Clark told The Air Current that the 777X is a promising plane despite being an ongoing headache for operators.

• Kuru Footwear compiled a list of the US airports with the longest and shortest walks to the gate.
• Dallas Fort Worth International Airport featured the longest walk at 2.16 miles.
• Blue Grass Airport in Kentucky had the shortest walk, measuring 0.11 miles.

Airports often feature moving walkways and shuttles to help transport passengers across large distances, but it can still take a while to walk from the check-in area to boarding.

As Business Insider previously reported, most airports are designed to get passengers to spend money rather than for efficiency. Lining huge airport terminals with shops and restaurants forces travelers to walk past them, increasing the likelihood of those travelers making a purchase.

Non-aeronautical revenue — the commercial side of airports including retail concessions, food and beverages, and parking — accounted for 34% of all airport income in 2021, according to Airports Council International's 2023 Airport Economics Report.

In March, Kuru Footwear determined the largest and smallest US airports by land area, then measured the distance between check-in and boarding at the gates using airport maps and Google Maps.

Here are the five US airports with the longest walks to the gate, and the five airports with the shortest walks, according to its report.

John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City features the fifth-longest walk from check-in to gates at 1.38 miles.

Denver International Airport has the fourth-longest walk, measuring 1.45 miles.

Travelers at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston walk 1.52 miles, the third-longest distance.

Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia features the second-longest walk at 1.62 miles.

Passengers at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport have the longest walk of any US airport with 2.16 miles between check-in and their gates.

The distance between check-in and gates at Hollywood Burbank Airport in California is 0.2 miles, making it the fifth-shortest walk in the US.

At 0.18 miles, Hawaii's Lihue Airport has the fourth-shortest walk.

Harrisburg International Airport in Pennsylvania features the third-shortest walk: 0.13 miles.

New York's Westchester County Airport has a 0.12-mile walk, making it the second-shortest in the US.

Travelers at Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, walk just 0.11 miles to their gates, making it the shortest distance of any US airport.

• Valerie Rodriguez, a human-resources director, says there are three things she never does in the workplace.
• She says oversharing at work can be harmful because it allows people to make decisions for you.
• Sticking around too long at company functions can also end negatively, she says.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Valerie Rodriguez, a 31-year-old human-resources director in New Jersey. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I've worked in HR for 10 years. Specifically, I work with senior leaders to ensure all sorts of HR compliance is in place. I do it all: coaching leaders, driving engagement, boosting team morale, and more.

When it comes to HR, people are usually curious about how to stand out at work. To that, I'd say go above and beyond, find ways to be innovative, and come to the table with solutions, not just problems. But beyond what you should do, there are also things you shouldn't.

After working in HR for 10 years, here are three things I'd never do in the workplace.

1. Don't overshare

The main point I preach is not to overshare at work. It's easy to become comfortable with your colleagues. After all, you spend eight hours a day with them, if not more. Even for remote workers, depending on the role, there's still a significant connection to coworkers, but it's important to remember they aren't your automatic friends.

Oversharing at work often does more harm than good because it allows people to make assumptions or decisions for you; even if it does come from a caring place, it's not a good idea.

For example, not thinking much of it, I once told a coworker about issues I was having with my car. Then, a couple of months later, an opportunity arose for me to move into a larger scope of work, requiring me to drive to different locations.

When my manager sat down with me, he mentioned he had heard about my car issues and expressed concern about me getting "stuck." As a result, the job opportunity wasn't given to me. I was so bummed out, and I felt burned. It made me realize I shouldn't share things in my personal life with those I work with, as it gives people the opportunity to weigh in and make decisions for me.

2. Don't be humble

I've learned not to be too humble when it comes to the workplace. I don't mean anyone should be cocky, think they're better than everyone else, or be a jerk; that won't get you very far, either. I believe you can be kind and empathetic, but at the same time, you can't let people step all over you, and you shouldn't put yourself last in comparison to others.

In my HR role, I've noticed that successful people tend to be very direct about their accomplishments and more vocal, whereas super-humble individuals tend not to talk about their achievements or advocate for themselves as much.

As a result, it's easier for them to get passed up for promotions and for them to fade into the background. I myself was once a big believer that my work would speak for itself, but I've since learned that if you don't advocate for yourself, no one else will.

3. Don't stick around too long at parties

As someone who's worked in HR, I've played a role in organizing events where I've had to stay to the end or just pop in when I can.

As a result, I've seen more negative things come out of sticking around too long at company functions than positive ones. Sometimes, it's the alcohol — people will start drinking, and it just goes too far.

Other times, people will be very much sober but make poor decisions because they're around their coworkers but in a different setting than the office. When they come into the office the next day, there are rumors flying. I myself like to play it on the safe side, and I won't usually stick around for more than an hour or two unless I have to.

Here's the thing: Even if you're fine and you don't engage in anything bad, if you see something, chances are HR or legal are going to come knocking on your door.

I say, swing by, spend some time at the party, and show your face, but hanging around longer than a couple of hours doesn't always serve a good purpose.

• Torre Guinigi, or Guinigi Tower, was built in Lucca, Italy, in the late 1300s.
• It was common for wealthy families to commission towers to see who could build the tallest one.
• The tower's roof has a garden, which has several tall holm oak trees and is open to visitors.

In 2024, homeowners' displays of wealth might include at-home movie theaters, helipads, sprawling subterranean garages — or even a towel warmer.

But in medieval Italy, homeowners were more obvious: The taller their structure, they thought, the greater their wealth and influence.

The rich sought to one-up each other by building the tallest towers they could. In some cities, like Lucca in Tuscany, the competition led to a skyline of medieval skyscrapers.

However, in Lucca today, just two towers remain from the time period, according to the city's tourism office. One is Torre Guinigi, or Guinigi Tower, which was built in the 14th century. Beyond its fascinating history, it's also notable for its unique rooftop garden of oak trees, which is visible from the street.

Here's a closer look at the tower, its history, and the spectacular views offered from its garden.

The 150-foot-tall Torre Guinigi dominates the skyline in Lucca, a city in Tuscany, Italy.

The medieval tower, an example of Romanesque-Gothic architecture, was built in the late 14th century for a family of wealthy merchants and bankers, the Guinigis. It was part of a complex of buildings where members of the family lived, according to the tower's visitor website.

At one point, the city had more than 130 towers. Today, according to the city's tourism office, Torre Guinigi is one of just two towers dating back to the Middle Ages.

At the time it was built, neighbors competed to see who could build the tallest structure.

It was common in Italy for rich families to commission towers to see who could build the tallest one.

"Towers were symbols of power, of importance, prestige, and wealth," MP Tours founder Paula Stanghetta, who has visited the city, told Business Insider. "Families competed to create the highest, most unique tower, which could also serve as a strategic advantage in times of attack."

However, by the 16th century, most of the towers had been destroyed or reduced in size. Others fell because they simply couldn't withstand their heights.

"Beyond a certain height, however, the tower often collapsed, to the mockery of the owner and great satisfaction of the enemy families," wrote Lucca's tourism office.

Torre Guinigi is now open to the public. To reach the roof, visitors must climb 230 steps.

The tower remained in the Guinigi family until 1968, when descendants bequeathed it to the city, according to the tower's visitor website. It was restored and opened to the public in the 1980s.

Now, visitors can climb 230 steps over 28 flights of stairs to reach the top. The stairs were originally on the outside of the building.

It costs 6 euros to visit, or around $6.50.

Once at the top, visitors will find panoramic views and one of the most unique gardens in the world.

When the Guinigi family built the tower, they created a garden on the roof to "represent rebirth and renewal," according to Tuscany's tourism office.

Today, holm oak trees, which are native to the Mediterranean and common in Italy, shade visitors from the Italian sun.

"Its garden and height are what make it unique," Stanghetta said of Guinigi Tower. "And of course there is a legend or tragic story that is connected to the garden."

The legend goes that the garden's tallest tree was planted by Paolo Guinigi, who became the lord of Lucca in 1400. In 1430, a popular revolt ended his leadership, and he was arrested. Before his death, while he was imprisoned in 1432, the tree at the top of the tower is said to have lost all of its leaves.

From the top of the building, visitors can see the one other remaining medieval tower in Lucca: the 160-foot-tall Torre delle Ore.

The Torre delle Ore, a clock tower, is the tallest tower in the city, according to Lucca's tourism office. It has held a clock since 1390.

From the top of Guinigi Tower, visitors also look out on the city's red roofs, its original Roman center, church spires, and the Tuscan hills.

Centuries after they built the structure to flaunt their wealth, the Guinigi family's tower endures.

The structure, one of the most popular attractions in Lucca, offers a fascinating insight into how Italy's wealthy classes once operated.

• Millionaires and big-city dwellers are moving to Scottsdale and Paradise Valley in Arizona.
• Phoenix's suburbs offer grand estates with privacy and mountain views.
• I visited both and saw that one is more expensive than the other due to location and property size.

Whether you're a tech worker, an executive, or a recent retiree, Phoenix offers easy living.

The desert valley city is known for its booming tech scene, sunny weather, dramatic, natural landscapes, and ease of travel with the well-connected Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.

And with lower taxes, it's no wonder millionaires and big-city dwellers are packing up and moving to the area.

But they're not flocking to Phoenix proper; they're moving to the suburbs surrounding it — Scottsdale and Paradise Valley.

The influx of millionaire residents over the last decade turned Scottsdale into the second-fastest growing US city in terms of wealth, Business Insider reported in March 2024.

Meanwhile, the neighboring Paradise Valley is the richest municipality in the state. Also known as the "Beverly Hills of Arizona," Paradise Valley draws celebrity and billionaire residents, from Stevie Nicks to Campbell Soup heir Bennett Dorrance.

So, what makes Paradise Valley more expensive and exclusive than Scottsdale, and how different are they?

I went to the two Phoenix suburbs and found out.

Paradise Valley has been primarily residential since its incorporation in 1961.

When Phoenix and Scottsdale were expanding in the decades following World War II, the town of Paradise Valley was established to keep the area strictly residential without strip malls or businesses to suck away the rural vibe, according to the town's website. It's just 15.5 square miles, according to the Paradise Valley Chamber of Arizona.

Today, the town has about 14,000 residents and is still mostly residential, save for a few resorts, schools, restaurants, and golf courses.

BI reported in 2023 that Californians have been flocking to Paradise Valley over the last decade. The average resident owns a multimillion-dollar estate and makes $220,000 a year.

With an average listing price of $5.5 million, according to Realtor.com, the town's homes at the bases of Camelback and Mummy mountains are grand estates with pools, outdoor kitchens, and sprawling yards.

Scottsdale has developed more like a city.

Established in 1951, Scottsdale is 185 square miles and currently has 243,000 residents, according to the city.

During my trip, I noticed that Scottsdale was much more developed than Paradise Valley. On the southern end, Downtown Scottsdale is full of high-end shops, dining, and luxury resorts.

Meanwhile, North Scottsdale is home to the city's priciest real estate, with homes as expensive as $54 million, according to Realtor.com.

While mostly residential, I spotted some business, shopping, and dining blocks in North Scottsdale, including the outdoor shopping mall, Scottsdale Quarter.

Up there, the clientele is similar to Paradise Valley — entrepreneurs, C-suite executives, retirees, and medical professionals, Shawn Shackleton, a local luxury real-estate agent who has sold homes in both towns for the last 20 years, told BI.

Scottsdale and Paradise Valley are both east of Phoenix, but Paradise Valley is closer to the action.

According to Shackleton, one of the reasons Paradise Valley is more expensive than Scottsdale is its prime location.

According to Shackleton, Paradise Valley sits between Phoenix and Scottsdale, giving residents a country-style refuge 15 to 20 minutes away from downtown Phoenix, the airport, and Biltmore, the area's financial district.

Downtown Scottsdale is similar in distance to Phoenix, but since most of the luxury homes are in the northern area, Scottsdale's wealthiest residents may live a 40-minute drive from Phoenix.

In Paradise Valley, most properties are at least an acre.

I noticed that most homes were far apart in Paradise Valley. Shackleton told BI that the lot sizes are generally larger in Paradise Valley than in Scottsdale — typically between one and 27 acres.

Shackleton told BI that having a lot of space is ideal for many clients who want to live in a sprawling, one-story home.

"Some people are coming from big cities where they're used to having two-story houses and small yards. And here we have the ability to have single-level homes," she said. "If you go single-level, or ranch, as most people call it, then that means a little bit more land and a higher price point."

Meanwhile, Scottsdale has smaller lot sizes.

In Scottsdale, most neighborhoods had a typical suburban layout with homes sharing side yards.

Unlike Paradise Valley, most homes for sale in Scottsdale have less than an acre of land, according to Zillow, with the largest properties in North Scottsdale.

During my trip, I toured one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city — Silverleaf Village, located within the 4,000-acre DC Ranch residential community.

I saw some large, sprawling custom homes in Silverleaf, but according to Shackleton's YouTube video, even there, most properties are less than 10 acres.

Luxury homes in Paradise Valley are typically individually gated.

According to Shackleton, Paradise Valley's large lots and gated driveways give high-profile residents a sense of privacy.

"When you get up into the higher price points, many of the houses in Paradise Valley are individually gated," Shackleton said. "Some like the feeling of being their own private estate."

Scottsdale's most expensive neighborhoods are gated communities with 24-hour guards.

Many of North Scottsdale's neighborhoods are gated within residential communities and have 24-hour guards, like DC Ranch, Desert Mountain, and WR Estates.

This gives the residents privacy and security from the public, but not necessarily their neighbors.

Scottsdale has more limits on custom homes.

Since most homes in North Scottsdale are in residential communities, residents who want to build homes choose from a select set of models and floor plans approved by the community.

And due to Scottsdale zoning laws, they can't pick where on the property the home is built, Shackleton said in the YouTube video.

Paradise Valley offers more flexibility in custom homes, resulting in a more diverse landscape.

According to the same video, Paradise Valley has fewer residential communities and zoning laws regarding real estate development, resulting in diverse neighborhoods that defy the cookie-cutter stigma of suburbia.

As a non-millionaire, I was skeptical that I'd even be able to tell the difference between these two luxurious suburbs. But after my trip, it's clear why only one is known as the "Beverly Hills of Arizona."

• President Biden is facing criticism after appearing unsure whether he watched his debate performance.
• His comments came during an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on Friday.
• The interview did little to ease concerns about his chances in the November election.

President Joe Biden is coming under fire on social media after appearing unsure whether he watched his disastrous debate performance with Donald Trump back.

During a highly anticipated ABC News interview on Friday, George Stephanopoulos asked Biden: "Did you ever watch the debate afterwards?"

Pausing very briefly, Biden said, "I don't think I did, no."

Biden's response faced immediate backlash on social media.

Referencing the president's answer, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung wrote on X: "How the hell do you not know if you re-watched the debate?

Brand strategist and HuffPost contributor Diane Mantouvalos noted that it "should have been an anticipated question, to which he could have answered: I've seen clips. Or: Not in its entirety, but enough to understand people's concern."

"If he didn't watch, that in itself is reckless," she added."A conscientious exec would take an hour or two to assess performance. What does he do all day?"

The interview came just a week after Biden's poor debate performance against Trump, in which he fumbled his words, seemed to lose his train of thought, and struggled with a raspy voice.

Democratic donors and supporters of the president viewed the interview as crucial to addressing the mounting concerns about the president's age and mental agility, as well as the increasing calls for him to drop out of the election race.

Biden avoided a repeat of his debate mishaps in this latest interview, using it to restate his commitment to remaining in the race, saying that only the "Lord Almighty" could get him to drop out.

Chalking his debate performance up to "a bad night," Biden also ruled out taking a cognitive test or undergoing an independent medical examination to check if he had any neurological conditions.

When confronted with polling figures that showed Trump with an increasing lead, Biden resorted to flat-out denial, questioning the accuracy of the data and leaning on internal polling that he claimed showed the election was still a "toss-up."

When Stephanopoulos also pointed out his low approval rating, noting that he had "never seen a president of 36% approval get re-elected," Biden again shut it down.

"Well, I don't believe that's my approval rating — that's not what our polls show," the president said.

• Israel and Hezbollah regularly trade fire, but the two are steadily exchanging escalatory remarks.
• Hezbollah has greatly increased its fighting capacity over the last two decades.
• The Iran-backed militants now maintain a huge arsenal of munitions that could threaten Israel. 

The threat of a wider war is looming for Israel, as is the potential that its cities and strategic military targets could face a massive bombardment in ways the country hasn't yet seen.

Israel and Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group operating out of Lebanon, have regularly exchanged fire since Hamas — which also enjoys significant support from Tehran — staged its cross-border massacre on Oct. 7.

These tit-for-tat engagements have so far been relatively contained to the border regions, but tensions between Israel and Hezbollah have escalated in recent weeks, raising fears that the two bitter foes may be headed for an unavoidable collision course.

United Nations officials have warned that such a fight would be catastrophic and lead to widespread death and destruction.

For Israel, a larger war with Hezbollah would look very different from the full-scale conflict it's fighting against Hamas in Gaza. The Lebanon-based militants are a much more dangerous force with a lot more weapons and combatants available to them.

In a fight with Hezbollah, Israel would need a lot of munitions readily available to it because "that's a much more difficult conflict" than the one in Gaza, which has been a tough enough fight as is, Daniel Byman, a former Middle East analyst for the US intelligence community, told Business Insider in May.

Hezbollah has grown stronger

Hezbollah has spent decades building up its arsenal and military capabilities. Before the 2006 Lebanon War, a monthlong conflict fought against Israel, Hezbollah maintained some 15,000 projectiles. That figure has swelled to over 130,000 today, with some estimates putting the missile and rocket inventory as high as 150,000.

Analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank wrote in a 2018 report that "Hezbollah is the world's most heavily armed non-state actor, with a large and diverse stockpile of unguided artillery rockets, as well as ballistic, anti-air, anti-tank, and anti-ship missiles."

Much of Hezbollah's inventory consists of various shorter-range, unguided projectiles. The analysts said that while these weapons may not be particularly accurate, they exist in large enough quantities to cause concern. The militants also possess precision-guided weapons that could reach deeper into Israel.

"Hezbollah views its rocket and missile arsenal as its primary deterrent against Israeli military action," the CSIS analysts explained, noting they are "also useful for quick retaliatory strikes and longer military engagements."

Hamas started the ongoing Gaza war with as many as 30,000 rockets and missiles, according to the Institute for National Security Studies, an Israeli think tank. It's a much smaller figure, but it has still caused issues for Israel and highlighted the value of maintaining a large stockpile, especially as it continues to expend a lot in Gaza.

That war has seen "a pretty serious rate of fire. And this would be even more so with Hezbollah," said Byman, a senior fellow with the CSIS' Transnational Threats Project. "Hezbollah has a lot more firepower. Israel would be using a lot more firepower in return."

Israel operates a sophisticated air-defense network able to engage different threats, from short-range rockets to medium-range ballistic missiles in the atmosphere. The Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow systems have all been busy since Oct. 7 but, for the most part, have managed to protect the country from enemy munitions.

But a larger Hezbollah war could overwhelm some of these systems, a scenario that has caused concern in Washington.

During the 2006 war, Hezbollah fired somewhere between 100 and 200 rockets per day at Israel, according to estimates cited by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank. In a future war between the two, the militants could fire in excess of 4,000 rockets per day in the early stages of a conflict, but they would eventually have to reduce that number to 1,500. Even then, it is still a significantly higher rate of fire than in 2006 and could put immense stress on Israel's defenses.

"Hezbollah's means of attack are highly impressive," the Israeli think tank INSS said in an October 2023 assessment. In a war with Hezbollah, the group's vast weapons inventory "will require Israel to divert countermeasure systems to targeted protection of civilian and military infrastructure."

The Britain Israel Communications and Research Center, an Israel advocacy organization, wrote in an October 2019 updated briefing that "even with Israel's early warning and missile interception system, missiles fired at major population centers in large numbers can be deadly, forcing civilian populations to remain in or near shelters, closing schools and businesses, and paralyzing normal life."

'No one' wants a war

Hezbollah put its firepower on display earlier this week, launching more than 200 rockets and attack drones into Israel in retaliation for the killing of a senior commander. It marked one of the militants' biggest barrages of the nine-month-long conflict.

Beyond the aerial threat, Hezbollah also has a personnel force of more than 50,000 combatants, according to a May 2024 report by the Congressional Research Service. Hamas, by contrast, was thought to have up to 30,000 fighters at the start of the Gaza war, and it has seen thousands of its members killed and wounded since October.

Adding to Hezbollah's potential combat force, thousands of additional fighters from Iran-backed groups across the region have offered to come fight against Israel in the event of a full-scale war.

For now, the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is still relatively low intensity, but fears are growing that it may not stay that way. The militants have tied their action to a ceasefire in Gaza, saying only then will the attacks stop. And as some Western nations urge de-escalation, the two enemies continue to threaten each other, saying that they will resort to force if needed.

More than two dozen soldiers and civilians have already been killed in Israel, and in Lebanon, that figure has surpassed 450. A majority of those dead are militants, but civilians have also been killed. Additionally, tens of thousands of people have been displaced from their homes in both countries.

"One of our primary objectives from day one — since October — was to do everything we could to make sure that this conflict didn't spread," US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at a Brookings Institution event earlier this month, adding, "No one actually wants a war."

• Warren Buffett has lived in the same family home in Omaha for almost 70 years.
• The billionaire paid just $31,500 for the house, which is now worth about $1.4 million.
• Here are Buffett's best quotes about buying a home, which he says can be both a great and terrible idea.

Warren Buffett, one of the world's wealthiest people worth almost $130 billion, has lived in the same unassuming house in Omaha for nearly 70 years.

The penny-pinching investor paid just $31,500 in 1958 for the family home, which Zillow values at about $1.4 million.

Buffett put off the purchase for years as he was certain he could earn a higher return by investing his money elsewhere. He even dubbed the house "Buffett's Folly" once he eventually bought it.

Even so, the Berkshire Hathaway CEO has joked about his deep fondness for his home, and ranked it among the best buys he's ever made. But he's also warned that owning an unaffordable home can be hellish.

Here are Buffett's 8 best quotes about homebuying, lightly edited for length and clarity:

1. "He was building a house at that time a few miles from here, and 62 years later, he's still living in the same house. Now that was interesting because I was buying a house just a few months before, 62 years ago, and I'm still living in the same house. So you've got a couple of fairly peculiar guys just to start with in terms of their love affair with their homes." (Buffett was speaking at Berkshire's shareholder meeting in 2021 about his since-deceased business partner, Charlie Munger.)

2. "When I got married, we did have about $10,000 starting off. I told Susie, "Now, you know, there's two choices, it's up to you. We can either buy a house, which will use up all my capital and clean me out, and it'll be like a carpenter who's had his tools taken away for him. Or you can let me work on this and someday, who knows, maybe I'll even buy a little bit larger house than would otherwise be the case.

   "So she was very understanding on that point. And we waited until 1956. We got married in 1952. And I decided to buy a house when the down payment was about 10% or so of my net worth, because I really felt I wanted to use the capital for other purposes." (Buffett believed he could invest $31,500 and turn it into $1 million in about a dozen years, so "he felt as though he were spending an outrageous million dollars on the house," author Alice Schroeder writes in her biography of Buffett.) (1998 meeting)

   

3. "Home ownership makes sense for most Americans. The third-best investment I ever made was the purchase of my home, though I would have made far more money had I instead rented and used the purchase money to buy stocks. (The two best investments were wedding rings.) For the $31,500 I paid for our house, my family and I gained 52 years of terrific memories with more to come." (2010 letter to shareholders)
4. "Anybody that knows where they're going to want to live, and has a reasonably assured income, I think they're making a terrible mistake if they don't buy a single-family home now and get a mortgage at these rates — and they should get a 30-year mortgage. It's really a golden opportunity. You're not going to see a chance like this five years from now, I'll guarantee you that." (CNBC interview in 2012)
5. "A home's a wonderful thing, but I wouldn't buy one if I was going to move in six months, and I wouldn't buy one if I was terribly nervous about my job." (2012 interview)
6. "A house can be a nightmare if the buyer's eyes are bigger than his wallet and if a lender — often protected by a government guarantee — facilitates his fantasy. Our country's social goal should not be to put families into the house of their dreams, but rather to put them into a house they can afford." (2010 letter)
7. Buffett described a 30-year mortgage as "the best instrument in the world. Because if you're wrong and rates go to 2%, which I don't think they will, you pay it off. It's a one-way renegotiation. It is an incredibly attractive instrument for the homeowner, and you've got a one-way bet." (CNBC interview, 2017)