• Companies are turning to consulting firms to help work out how to use AI effectively.
• Their clients are asking about how machine learning and generative AI can transform businesses.
• Consultants told BI that questions also include how to make AI worth the investment.

It's possible to pose almost any question to artificial intelligence.

But when it comes to how to use the technology, many companies are directing their inquiries to consulting firms instead.

Doling out advice on AI is making up a growing share of many firms' work. Some 900 of PwC's top 1,000 consulting clients are now working with the firm on incorporating AI into their businesses, a spokesperson told Business Insider.

In 2023, McKinsey & Company brought in a record $16 billion in revenue, partly due to the generative AI boom. Almost 40% of the company's work now relates to AI. And much of that is now moving to GenAI, Ben Ellencweig, a senior partner who leads alliances, acquisitions, and partnerships globally for McKinsey's AI arm, QuantumBlack, told BI.

Boston Consulting Group, for its part, now generates a fifth of its revenue from AI, and much of that work involves advising clients on GenAI, a spokesperson told BI.

"18 months ago, the conversation was all about 'what is GenAI,'" Allison Bailey, the head of people and organization practice at BCG, told BI.  "Today it is, 'How do I actually drive value with AI and drive meaningful change in how we work?'"

Even as some companies focus on how AI might rewrite corporate playbooks, some businesses are asking consultants how to get started. The question could be as simple as where it's wisest to invest resources and training in AI.

Bailey said the "people topics" are critical to the equation. Businesses want to know how to mobilize their workers to embrace the technology.

Greg Sward, head of strategy for technology, media, and telecommunications at KPMG US, said some corporate tech leaders wonder whether they have the knowledge to make smart decisions.

"Many CIOs are afraid that they don't have the right skills," he told BI. They're also worried about how to keep a handle on the technology and what the regulatory environment might look like.

BI asked several consultancies to share the most common questions they're getting about AI and their best advice. Here are some of the themes they identified.

Where to begin

Many companies are still determining how they might use AI and GenAI, according to several consultants.

Jim Rowan, AI market activation leader and principal of Deloitte Consulting, told BI that companies that are new to AI should start by asking some basic questions:

• What are we trying to achieve by adopting AI?
• Do we have the talent, investment, and systems to support deployment?
• Have we addressed data governance, privacy questions, potential biases, and other concerns?

If a company can answer those questions, it should outline areas where the technology will be helpful. Then, "closely measure and monitor its performance to make sure you're actually meeting your goals," Rowan added.

According to Vlad Lukic, global leader for BCG's tech & digital advantage practice, companies should also have a good handle on their data. That's the crucial base for training GenAI. "The first step is making sure you have your house in order from a data perspective. This enables greater seamlessness down the line, and that is where the magic lies," he told BI.

Roy Singh, global head of the advanced analytics practice at Bain & Company, told BI that those just getting started with AI should focus on short-term goals like understanding the technology or driving productivity gains.

Building workers' skills

Companies interested in AI know technology is often only part of the equation. Another component is ensuring that workers are up to speed.

Joe Atkinson, the chief products and technology officer at PwC, told BI that it's essential to help employees learn how to use generative AI rather than relying solely on recruiting AI specialists, who are in high demand.

Getting workers to use the tools might not be as hard as it sounds. Atkinson said the technology is so accessible that almost anyone in a company could use it to create products or services or to be more efficient.

Leading by example is important. Senior managers should use AI to demonstrate how it can be useful, while employees should be given time to explore the tech themselves, according to Deloitte's Rowan.

"It's important to build excitement for AI adoption and communicate openly," he said. So, companies should host events like hackathons, encourage experimentation, and educate workers on how AI could make them more efficient in their jobs.

Reinventing your business

The advances in AI will affect some companies more than others.

And in industries where AI is already forcing a rewrite of business models, companies need to think comprehensively about how they can overhaul operations with generative AI.

Bain's Singh pointed to the grocery business. Companies like Instacart and Carrefour are looking to "invent the next-generation customer experience" using AI, he said, adding that they're not necessarily just looking for efficiency gains.

Most companies, regardless of how much they might have dabbled in AI, should be flexible enough to accommodate new developments, according to PwC's Atkinson.

He suggests that companies should build AI systems with an open architecture approach, which is a way of designing software that makes adding, upgrading, or swapping out elements easy.

A return on investment

Bain's Singh said companies often wonder what sort of productivity gains and other financial benefits they might expect from using AI.

Yet he's said companies are starting to see measurable gains — sometimes even huge improvements — from AI. This might be in areas like software engineering, finance, or human resources.

Singh said many companies — especially those loaded with knowledge workers doing desk jobs — can expect to notch productivity improvements of 15% to 20%. Sometimes, it's far higher. In businesses where AI can take over repetitive tasks, the boost to productivity can be upward of 50%, he said.

That doesn't mean each worker necessarily gets back half of their time. But if the time it takes to complete some work is cut in half, then someone working in marketing, financial services compliance, or a life sciences regulatory role might eventually get back the equivalent of a full day's work.

Singh said it might take a company two to three years to achieve major efficiency gains but that the opportunity is immense.

In most cases, he said, it's important to set expectations about how new AI is for many businesses.

"We should all have the humility to admit we're very early in the adoption cycle," Singh said.

• The leader of the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon threatened the Republic of Cyprus.
• Hezbollah has a vast arsenal of missiles and drones to carry through on its threat.
• Hezbollah may be using Cyprus as a "stand in" to threaten Greece, a regional expert said.

The leader of the powerful Iran-backed Hezbollah militia in Lebanon threatened the Republic of Cyprus for the first time this month, underscoring the risks of the Middle East crisis spreading beyond the region. The threat against Cyprus is also an indirect threat against NATO member Greece, which has close ties with Israel.

"The Cypriot government must be warned that opening Cypriot airports and bases for the Israeli enemy to target Lebanon means that the Cypriot government has become part of the war and the resistance (Hezbollah) will deal with it as part of the war," Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's secretary-general, declared in a June 19 speech.

Hezbollah has a vast arsenal of drones, anti-ship, ballistic, and cruise missiles that makes it capable of following through on Nasrallah's threat against the Eastern Mediterranean island.

"Hezbollah is attempting to use all possible means to cause fear in Israel and its partners, in this case, the Republic of Cyprus," George Tzogopoulos, a senior fellow at the Centre International de Formation Européenne, a French policy research institute, told Business Insider.

"I would consider Hezbollah's tactics as psychological warfare," Tzogopoulos said. "Although the Republic of Cyprus and Israel have enjoyed strategic cooperation for years, the current timing is crucial. That is perhaps why threats were made public a few days ago."

Cyprus is a divided island. The republic, which Nasrallah threatened, in the south is a member of the European Union. Aside from Turkey, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the north is internationally unrecognized. These sides are split by a UN-patrolled buffer zone. The United Kingdom also has exclusive control over two military bases on the island's south, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which are officially known as Sovereign Base Areas.

The EU predictably denounced Nasrallah's threats, as did the republic's main ally, Greece. Turkey, conversely, warned Cyprus "to stay away from the conflict" in the region.

The armed forces of Cyprus have hosted training exercises with their Israeli counterparts on the island. Cyprus has maintained an official policy of neutrality in Israel's ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza, which it has reiterated since Nasrallah's threat. The island serves as a hub for the maritime humanitarian corridor the US and the EU have tried to establish for shipping aid to Gaza. According to officials, relations between the US and Cyprus recently "reached their highest level yet," raising hopes that the US will fully lift its arms embargo on the island. Warming ties will undoubtedly help Cyprus weather Hezbollah's threat.

"Public threats are taken seriously, and they can generate a political response," Tzogopoulos said. "The Republic of Cyprus is able to expose the tactics of Hezbollah at the EU level and simultaneously seek support by the US."

"Hezbollah's public threats could turn out to be a double-edged sword for it," Tzogopoulos added. "In terms of security, I would not expect a country like the Republic of Cyprus, which is so close to the US and Israel, to start preparations against a possible attack as a result of public threats."

Nevertheless, Hezbollah could harm Cyprus if it carries out its threat. The group flew three unarmed drones over Israel's Karish gas-drilling platform in 2022, demonstrating its capability to threaten targets within Israel's maritime zone. Tzogopoulos suspects that Hezbollah could "perhaps employ similar tactics" inside Cyprus's economic exclusive zone, which is also well within the range of the group's drones and missiles.

"The Israeli capacity to shoot down Hezbollah's drones in 2022 could be a model for the Republic of Cyprus," Tzogopoulos said. "In fact, this is the substance of the strategic cooperation between Israel and the Republic of Cyprus."

Israel, the analyst noted, is also "prepared to share part of its technological and military know-how" with the island republic. Before the Gaza war that began in the wake of Hamas' Oct. 7 terror attacks, reports emerged that Cyprus was negotiating the acquisition of Israeli Merkava Mark III main battle tanks and even Israel's well-known Iron Dome air defense system.

Existing air defenses in the Cypriot National Guard are limited to short- to medium-range systems like the Russian Tor and Buk. These systems are no match for the powerful surface-to-surface missiles in Hezbollah's arsenal, which include the Iranian-designed Fateh series of short-range ballistic missiles, many of which have the range to reach the Cypriot capital Nicosia roughly 180 miles away.

Hezbollah's expansive arsenal includes up to 150,000 rockets and missiles and approximately 2,000 drones of various types, many of them based on Iranian designs. These include a Syrian variant of the Iranian Fateh-110 missile, the M-600. That GPS-guided missile is almost 9 meters long.

Hezbollah's drones have recently posed significant challenges to Israel's sophisticated, multi-layered air defenses, including the Iron Dome. While many of these drones are relatively low-tech, such as the cheap and locally assembled Mersad and Ayoub models, others are more advanced models based on Iranian designs like the Ababil, Mohajer, and Shahed series. In addition to launching barrages of one-way explosive drones, Hezbollah attacked a military post in northern Israel in May using a drone that fired two missiles inside Israeli airspace.

Hezbollah has also amassed an arsenal of increasingly sophisticated anti-ship missiles in recent years, most notably the Russian-made Yakhont, which boasts a range of 186 miles.

Such capabilities would undoubtedly pose a significant threat to Cyprus in the event of war.

Experts have already noted that such missiles also enable Hezbollah to target Britain's Akrotiri air base on the island, which supported US-led airstrikes against Hezbollah's ally, the Houthis in Yemen. "For Hezbollah to target British bases in Cyprus would be a high risk," Tzogopoulos said. "The British-American response to such a scenario would be strong. Nothing is to be excluded in times of general instability, but Hezbollah will pay a heavy price if it targets British bases in Cyprus."

Nicholas Heras, senior director of strategy and innovation at the New Lines Institute, believes that Nasrallah's threat is also directed at other countries, specifically Greece. Hezbollah seeks to send the message "that all of the Eastern Mediterranean is within range of its attacks" if the group "feels existentially threatened" by a full-scale war with Israel, he said.

"Cyprus, although it could serve as a route for the Israeli Air Force to target Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hezbollah assets in Syria, is nowhere near as important a security partner to Israel as Greece has become over the past several years," Heras told BI.

The New Lines analyst noted the Israeli Defense Forces has used Greece as a "key site" for training for another potential war in Lebanon. Greece allows the Israeli Air Force to train over parts of the country with "topographical similarities" to Lebanon.

"Greece, a NATO country, is not a likely target for Hezbollah, but Cyprus, a country with close cultural and other ties to Greece, serves as a stand-in for Greece for potential intimidation purposes," Heras said.

"Hezbollah's longer-range, Iranian-supplied missiles could strike Greece."

• California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Kimberly Guilfoyle were married for five years, from 2001 to 2006.
• As the mayor and first lady of San Francisco, they were dubbed "the new Kennedys."
• Guilfoyle went on to work in the Trump White House and is engaged to Donald Trump Jr.

Gavin Newsom and Kimberly Guilfoyle, who were married from 2001 to 2006, were once a high-profile political couple known as "the new Kennedys."

Their paths have diverged significantly since their time as mayor and first lady of San Francisco.

Newsom, whose push for marriage equality cemented him as a national figure in the Democratic party, went on to become governor of California. He married documentary filmmaker Jennifer Siebel Newsom in 2008.

Newsom has been floated as a possible replacement for President Joe Biden in the 2024 election in the unlikely event Biden drops out of the presidential race.

Guilfoyle, a former assistant district attorney turned Fox News host, became a conservative influencer and advisor to President Donald Trump in the White House. She is engaged to Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr.

Newsom and Guilfoyle have occasionally acknowledged their shared past and exchanged barbs about their divergent political affiliations.

Here's a timeline of their relationship.

Circa 1994: Kimberly Guilfoyle and Gavin Newsom met at a Democratic fundraiser.

San Francisco attorney Art Groza introduced the couple at a fundraiser for John Burton, who was then a member of the California State Assembly and went on to be elected to the House of Representatives, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

December 2001: Guilfoyle and Newsom got married seven years after they met.

Newsom and Guilfoyle wed at St. Ignatius Church in San Francisco. At the time, Newsom worked as a county supervisor, and Guilfoyle was an assistant district attorney.

January 2004: Newsom was sworn in as mayor of San Francisco, and Guilfoyle moved to New York to host "Both Sides" on Court TV.

Months later, Newsom told the San Francisco Chronicle that living on different coasts had "taken a huge toll personally."

"The transcontinental marriage is tough — the only godsend is that we don't have kids," he said. "You give up your life in the traditional sense."

September 2004: A feature in Harper's Bazaar magazine dubbed them "the new Kennedys."

One image from the Harper's Bazaar spread showed Guilfoyle and Newsom lying together in formalwear on a rug at Ann and Gordon Getty's house.

In the accompanying article, Newsom described their relationship as "a wonderful combination of being in love and extraordinarily proud."

January 2005: The couple jointly filed for divorce.

Newsom and Guilfoyle released a joint statement announcing the end of their marriage "with great sadness," The San Francisco Chronicle reported.

"Unfortunately, the demands of our respective careers have made it too difficult for us to continue as a married couple," the statement said. "Over the past 10 years, we have developed a tremendous bond of love and respect for each other. That will never change. We will remain close friends. We ask for your understanding and consideration during this difficult time."

November 2005: Newsom and Guilfoyle reunited for a series of events, sparking reports they had gotten back together.

After the two were spotted together at Newsom's birthday party, a golf championship, and an outing with then-Prince Charles and Camilla during their royal visit, The San Francisco Chronicle described their marriage as "on-again, off again."

Guilfoyle gave a vague answer to the Chronicle when asked if she and Newsom had gotten back together.

"If I was standing back and looking at the situation, I would say it went great — these two people obviously love each other and get along very well," Guilfoyle told the Chronicle. "But I don't have an answer for you. We are not back together."

February 2006: Their divorce was finalized.

Guilfoyle told The San Francisco Chronicle that the divorce was amicable, and that she and Newsom shared a lawyer throughout the proceedings.

"We're very close, and we're going to remain that way," she said.

May 2006: Guilfoyle married businessman and furniture heir Eric Villency.

Villency and Guilfoyle welcomed a son in October 2006. They divorced in November 2009, Newsweek reported.

January 2007: Newsom admitted to having an affair with his campaign manager's wife in 2005 while he and Guilfoyle were in the midst of their divorce.

After Newsom's campaign manager, Alex Tourk, abruptly resigned for "personal" reasons, Newsom publicly apologized for the affair the next day, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"I want to make it clear that everything you've heard and read is true, and I'm deeply sorry about that," he said at a press conference. "I've hurt someone I care deeply about — Alex Tourk, and his friends and family. And that is something I have to live with."

July 2008: Newsom married documentary filmmaker and actress Jennifer Siebel.

Newsom and Siebel wed in Stevensville, Montana, on a ranch belonging to Siebel's parents, People magazine reported. Nancy Pelosi, former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown, and actor Jason Lewis were in attendance.

The couple now shares four children.

August 2017: Guilfoyle spoke highly of Newsom during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, which he went on to win.

In a profile of Newsom in The Sacramento Bee, Guilfoyle described him as "an amazing 'ideas guy' in terms of having an idea, developing it and seeing it to fruition."

Newsom won the race for California governor in the 2018 midterm elections and took the oath of office in 2019.

2018: Guilfoyle and Donald Trump Jr. went public as a couple in May. Newsom publicly addressed the relationship for the first time in September.

After Guilfoyle and Trump Jr.'s relationship became public in May 2018, Newsom told KQED host Lily Jamali that he was "still trying to come to grips with all of it."

"I wish her well, and them well," he said. "And we see the world, clearly, with a different set of eyes politically."

August 2020: Newsom declined to comment after Guilfoyle attacked California in her speech at the Republican National Convention.

"If you want to see the Socialist Biden Harris future for our country, just take a look at California," Guilfoyle said in her speech. "It is a place of immense wealth, immeasurable innovation, and immaculate environment, and the Democrats turned it into a land of discarded heroin needles in parks, riots in streets, and blackouts in homes."

Fox News host Elex Michaelson asked the California governor if he had a response. Newsom opted to "respectfully defer to the next question."

September 2022: Newsom said that he and Guilfoyle weren't in touch anymore.

When MSNBC host Alex Wagner asked if he and Guilfoyle still spoke, Newsom replied, "Nope. Not lately."

"It must be weird for you," Wagner said.

"Yeah, of course," Newsom replied.

February 2023: Newsom said that Guilfoyle was a "different person" when they were married and that she "fell prey" to the culture at Fox News.

On an episode of CNN's "The Axe Files" podcast, Newsom said Guilfoyle was "spending a lot of time in Democratic circles" while they were married, citing her work for a progressive district attorney and connection to fellow California attorney Kamala Harris.

"She fell prey, I think, to the culture at Fox in a deep way," Newsom said of Guilfoyle. "She would disagree with that assessment, she would perhaps suggest that she found the light."

February 2023: Guilfoyle hit back, saying that Newsom was now "unrecognizable" and had "fallen prey" to the "radical left."

On an episode of "The Charlie Kirk Show" later that week, Guilfoyle called Newsom's comments "absurd," adding that she was a registered Republican while they were married and that it was Newsom who had changed drastically.

"I didn't change, he did," she said. "He used to be so proud to fight for small business, for entrepreneurs, for those hardworking men and women. And he's fallen prey to the left, the radical left, that is pushing him so far to the left that it's unrecognizable."

Guilfoyle also said that she thought Newsom would run for president in 2024 and that it's something he "wants very badly."

• A construction company in Hawaii has to foot the bill for the demolition of a house it built on the wrong lot, a judge ruled.
• A woman who lives in California bought the plot for $22,500 and planned to build a retreat.
• The construction company built the house on the wrong plot after incorrectly identifying it using telephone poles.

A house mistakenly built on the wrong plot of land in Hawaii is set to be knocked down after a developer got it confused with the neighboring lot. A judge ordered the construction company that made the mistake to foot the bill for the demolition.

Annaleine "Anne" Reynolds bought the one-acre plot of land in Hawaiian Paradise Park on Hawaii's Big Island for $22,500 at a tax auction in 2018.

Reynolds, who lives in California, previously told Business Insider she had planned to use the land for a home for her children as well as to host women's retreats, but said in legal filings that she discovered in June 2023 that a house worth roughly $500,000 had been built on the plot.

PJ's Construction, which was contracted by Keaau Development to build twelve properties in Hawaiian Paradise Park, mistakenly built the property on the wrong plot after using telephone poles to try to identify Lot 115 — but accidentally built it on Lot 114, the other side of the telephone pole, per legal filings.

Patrick John Lawrence, Jr., the owner of PJ's Construction, said that he was first made aware that the property had been built on the wrong lot when he was informed by the real-estate agent after the house was sold.

Keaau Development then sued Reynolds, claiming she was "unjustly enriched" by the property.

PJ's Construction has to pay for the demolition of the house on Reynolds's property, Judge Robert D. S. Kim wrote in an order on Monday, viewed by BI. The company may seek contribution or indemnity from Keaau Development at a subsequent trial or hearing, Kim wrote.

Reynolds had also asked for the court to order Keaau Development and PJ's Construction to restore the plot of land to its original state. To build the house, PJ's Construction had bulldozed the lot, which "removed all of the previously standing native vegetation," Kim wrote. After this, there was a "long period of neglect," during which invasive Albizia trees were able to "infest" the lot, he wrote.

As well as building the house, PJ's Construction also installed a septic tank and a catchment water system.

But Kim wrote that it was '"impossible" to return the property to its original state.

The companies had "seriously disturbed the peaceable use, enjoyment, and possession of real property," Kim wrote.

Reynolds had testified that her property taxes for the plot shot up after the house was constructed and that she found signs of squatting such as empty drink containers and human waste in the toilet and on the floor.

Keaau Development and PJ's Construction excavated the lot and built the house without a survey as part of a plan to "cut corners to reduce construction costs," Kim wrote in Monday's filing. And because the construction permits were approved for Lot 115, not Lot 114, the house is illegal, he wrote.

The case is still ongoing, with a trial scheduling conference currently set for the end of July.

"We are thrilled with the court's decision that PJ's Construction must bear the costs of demolishing the unauthorized structure on Anne Reynolds' property," Reynolds' lawyer, James D. DiPasquale, told BI.

"This ruling not only preserves Anne's property rights but also sets a precedent for accountability in the construction industry. While it's regrettable that the land cannot be restored to its original state, the judgment underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to property and zoning laws."

Business Insider was not immediately able to contact lawyers for PJ's Construction, and did not immediately receive a response from Keaau's attorney.

• The season 3 finale of FX's "The Bear" teases more episodes to come.
• The show was reportedly renewed for a fourth season in March. 
• Contrary to reports, seasons 3 and 4 weren't filmed back to back.

FX will be serving up more episodes of "The Bear."

Season three of the Emmy-winning series, centered on chef Carmen "Carmy" Berzatto's (Jeremy Allen White) mission to transform his family's beef shop into an upscale fine-dining restaurant, was released on Wednesday night. The 10-episode season concludes with a title card that reads, "To be continued."

Although the network has yet to make an official announcement, multiple outlets, including The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline, reported earlier this year that "The Bear" was quietly renewed for a fourth season.

Here's everything we know so far.

Some scenes for season 4 were already filmed

In March, THR and Deadline reported that seasons three and four would be filmed back to back. According to the publications, this production change was meant to keep the show's release timeline intact and accommodate the cast's availability.

However, during a season three virtual press conference attended by Business Insider, the cast hedged when a reporter asked if seasons three and four were filmed back to back.

"We did something like that," White said.

"Yeah, a little version of it, sort of. But not exactly," Edebiri added.

Days later, The Playlist reported that season four wasn't filmed in its entirety because the scripts weren't ready.

FX confirmed to the publication that seasons three and four weren't filmed uninterrupted, but some parts for the next installment were shot.

There's no season 4 release date yet

Since its premiere in summer 2022, a new season of "The Bear" has been consistently released every year. If the show maintains that pace, season four will likely come out sometime in 2026.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

• Warren Buffett revealed he owns about $600 million of assets apart from Berkshire Hathaway stock.
• The investor said his Berkshire A shares, worth $127 billion, represent 99.5% of his net worth.
• He likely keeps most of his remaining wealth in his personal portfolio of stocks and bonds.

Warren Buffett just revealed he has about $600 million of personal wealth outside of his Berkshire Hathaway stock.

The famed investor and Berkshire CEO announced on Friday that he's donated another $5.3 billion of his company's shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and four of his family's foundations. He noted that the gifts, based on their value when received, total around $55 billion over the last 18 years.

"I have no debts and my remaining A shares are worth about $127 billion, roughly 99½% of my net worth," he added.

Buffett's comment suggests the remaining 0.5% or about $600 million of his fortune is in other assets. The financial guru owns about $1 million of Berkshire's cheaper B shares, and his Omaha home is worth an estimated $1.4 million.

Even if Buffett possesses other physical assets worth a few million dollars, it seems likely his personal portfolio of stocks and bonds accounts for the bulk of his non-Berkshire wealth.

After all, he's personally owned at least $80 million worth of just three stocks — Wells Fargo, Walmart, and Johnson & Johnson — in years past, ProPublica reported last year based on leaked Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data.

Buffett also sold at least $466 million of stock between 2000 and 2019, and disposed of bonds worth much more, ProPublica said. The story pointed to a personal portfolio worth hundreds of millions of dollars just a few years back.

The investor's latest hint supports that idea. It also helps explain how Buffett can afford to only collect a $100,000 salary from Berkshire, and return half that amount to the company each year.

Buffett likely earns meaningful amounts of stock dividends and bond income from his personal holdings, which spares him from having to sell Berkshire shares to pay his bills.

• From high-quality food to top-notch healthcare, pet owners want the best for their furry friends.
• Some homebuilders are adding tubs and showers just for pets — and buyers are intrigued.
• Adding pet amenities helps homebuilders stand out in a sluggish real-estate market. 

For many people, their four-legged friends aren't just pets — they're family.

Many pet owners spare no expense for their furry friends, whether investing in high-quality food or custom-built habitats. Each year, Americans spend billions of dollars to ensure their happiness and well-being.

While healthcare and food constitute the majority of pet owner expenses, a new trend has emerged: dedicated pet wash stations.

These built-in showers, exclusively designed for bathing and showering animals, are becoming a common feature in many newly built homes nationwide.

They often look like human showers or tubs but include specialized features. For instance, some have a low-profile entryway that allows dogs to enter and exit easily without requiring owners to lift or bend excessively. Some have shower heads with extended hoses for better reach and flexibility.

Depending on the level of luxury, pet wash stations can cost homeowners between $400 and $2,000 to DIY, according to home-maintenance site The Spruce. Recognizing the demand for this amenity, many builders now include them in their newly-built homes.

Homebuilders are now catering to dogs and other pets in their designs

At last week's National Association of Real Estate Editors conference, Sanju Surtani, a vice president of sales at homebuilder Highland Homes, told a crowd of attendees that pet wash stations are becoming more popular as builders design homes to cater to "multi-species living."

"One in five households acquired a pet during COVID, so we are creating designated areas for furry family members," Surtani said. "We've got spotlight showers and living spaces for pets. This is something that's now being integrated into utility spaces as well."

Feelings of isolation and yearning for companionship arose during the pandemic, prompting millions of Americans to welcome a pet into their homes. This trend has persisted even as the world recovers, with adoption rates remaining high. According to data from the American Pet Products Association, 86.9 million US households are home to at least one pet as of 2024.

A contributing factor to the increasing number of Americans pursuing pet ownership may also be the declining birth rate in the US, as more couples choose to postpone starting a family or opt not to have children at all.

Actually, there's a specific term for such couples: DINKWAD — double income, no kids, with a dog. These households often enjoy higher incomes and have greater financial flexibility.

During a period of low buyer demand and fewer home sales, competition among homebuilders has intensified. Therefore, it's not surprising that many are enhancing their appeal by incorporating tailored features like pet wash stations into their builds.

Highland Homes has integrated "puppy spas'' into some builds. These rooms feature built-in kennels, storage for supplies, and animal-wash stations, providing homeowners with a convenient alternative to taking their dogs to the groomers.

Surtani told Business Insider that in today's expensive real estate market, those who can still afford to move don't want to compromise on their new home and its amenities.

"Now more than ever, if people are going to sacrifice selling their home and move into something else, there has to be a good reason," she said.

• NASA conducted a new tabletop simulation of discovering a large asteroid headed for Earth.
• Experts feared Congress wouldn't fund a mission to an asteroid with a 72% chance of impacting Earth.
• This hypothetical scenario highlights a challenge in addressing any future impact threat: politics.

NASA recently brought together about 100 experts to pretend that an asteroid was heading for Earth.

The tabletop simulation presented a hypothetical scenario in which cities like Dallas, Washington, DC, and Madrid were at risk of a large asteroid impact.

"A large asteroid impact is potentially the only natural disaster humanity has the technology to predict years in advance and take action to prevent," Lindley Johnson, a NASA planetary defense officer emeritus, said in a press release.

But it wasn't clear that they could prevent such a catastrophe — even with 14 years to figure it out.

The simulation revealed that technology wasn't the problem that could ultimately doom a city, region, or entire country. It was politics.

"I know what I would prefer [to do], but Congress will tell us to wait," one participant said of their asteroid-response plan, in a selection of anonymized comments in NASA's summary of the exercise, published on June 20.

"The most important item of the morning was the discussion involving the political nature of the decision-making," another participant said.

Congress may not move fast enough

NASA has conducted nearly a dozen tabletop simulations since 2013. This one happened in May and included participants from the US State Department, FEMA, and the space agencies of Europe, the UK, Japan, and Canada.

Past exercises showed that, in order to save the world, NASA would need at least five years' notice that an asteroid was headed toward us, maybe even 10 years.

This time the simulators learned that, even when they had plenty of time, they might not be able to launch their preferred anti-asteroid offensive.

That's because they didn't think Congress would approve funding for a critical space mission to study the asteroid "unless impact became certain," NASA's summary said.

A major part of the simulation was figuring out how to impress the "seriousness" of the situation upon Congress and other leadership, Johnson said.

What's more, the 14-year timeline spanned multiple budget cycles and presidential elections. At any of those junctures, the president, Congress, or NASA's own leadership could change priorities and disrupt the asteroid plan.

The most likely incoming asteroid scenario

Here are the hypothetical conditions the participants were given in this year's exercise: Scientists have determined a 72% chance of this asteroid impacting Earth in 14 years. It could strike anywhere across a swath of North America, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

The asteroid's size was unclear. It could be anywhere from 60 to 800 meters (half a mile) wide — possibly big enough to devastate an entire country.

All that uncertainty made this "a very realistic scenario," Richard Binzel, a planetary scientist at MIT who specializes in potentially hazardous asteroids, but did not participate in the simulation, told Business Insider.

"In fact, it's the most likely type of scenario we will face, where an asteroid is discovered and we have limited information," Binzel said.

Options for preventing an asteroid impact include shooting the asteroid with lasers, launching a nuclear bomb at it, or simply smacking a space probe into it to nudge it away from Earth.

NASA has tested one of those options in a mission that punched an asteroid and dramatically changed its path in 2022, just to prove the technique could work.

In the simulation, experts wanted more information to understand their anti-asteroid options.

Unfortunately, the fictional space rock was about to pass behind the sun and disappear from view for seven months. To avoid wasting precious time, scientists would have to send a spacecraft to the asteroid to learn more about it.

That's where they feared politics would get in the way. Participants weren't sure Congress would fund the mission unless the asteroid was a certain threat — not a 72% chance of threat.

So far, NASA has not discovered any large asteroids on track to impact Earth.

But scientists have identified fewer than 11,000 near-Earth asteroids that are at least 140 meters (460 feet) wide — big enough to crush a city. They believe there are 15,000 of them in our vicinity, meaning more than a quarter of city killers remain undiscovered.

NASA could plan a mission just in case

Binzel says NASA could get political and bureaucratic barriers out of the way now, before any asteroid threats are identified, by developing a reconnaissance mission to have on standby.

"It's an adult thing to do that can protect us from becoming surprised," he said.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine made a similar recommendation in its last decadal survey of planetary science priorities.

In that 2022 report, the Academies said that NASA should "develop an approach for a rapid-response, flyby" spacecraft to closely study newly-discovered threats. That way, it could launch a reconnaissance mission in less than three years if it became necessary. The Academies also recommended a demonstration to practice reconnaissance on a real asteroid.

So why isn't NASA working on that right now?

"It's not in the budget," Binzel said.

First NASA has to make a proposal for such a mission, with a thumbs up from the White House, and then Congress would have to authorize and fund it.

"If there's an asteroid out there with our name on it, it's already there," Binzel said. "Fortunately, the chance in the next century or so is incredibly small. But it's not zero."

• Ending a franchise places high pressure on creators to satisfy fans and resolve storylines.
• Some high-grossing films like "The Rise of Skywalker" failed to meet fan expectations.
• But "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2" killed it.

When trying to end a franchise on a successful note, the pressure is on.

Fans will almost always be unsatisfied unless every question is answered or if their favorite characters don't end up in a good place by the end of the story.

For every quality franchise-capper, there's one that didn't quite stick the landing with fans — even ones that make $1 billion at the box office, like "Jurassic World Dominion" or "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker."

Here are some franchises that we think aced the ending … and some that could've used a little more work.

Warning: This list contains spoilers for some of these franchises.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2" gave us the climactic showdown we'd been waiting for for 10 years.

From the moment we first laid eyes on 11-year-old Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter in 2001's "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," we knew it would be hard to eventually say goodbye.

Ten years and seven movies later, the time came to see Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Co.'s final adventure as they battled the evil Lord Voldemort.

While some book fans weren't too pleased with some of the changes made from the books to the movies, it's hard to deny the power of seeing Harry finally figure out Voldemort's master plan and beat him, and then to see that our core trio has made it into adulthood and have become parents.

For '80s and '90s kids, these characters grew up with them, and saying farewell was difficult but satisfying.

"Before Midnight" capped off the best — and perhaps only — romance trilogy of all time.

Director Richard Linklater's "Before" trilogy follows Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Céline (Julie Delpy), two strangers who met in Vienna in 1995 in "Before Sunrise." They make plans to meet up in six months, but it's revealed nine years later in "Before Sunset" that the reunion didn't happen.

Instead, in 2004, Céline attends a reading of Jesse's novel he wrote about their time together. While the film does end with Jesse missing his plane, their relationship is left romantically ambiguous.

That is, until 2013's "Before Midnight," which catches up with the couple another nine years later, when it's revealed they've gotten married and had twin girls.

It's the first time viewers really got to see what Jesse and Céline are like together — it's not perfect, but that's what makes it so real and powerful.

If "Before Sunset" is the last we see of these two — and it seems like it is because the next nine-year interval would have been 2022 — we're happy with the time we spent with them.

"The Dark Knight Rises" wasn't perfect, but it was nice to see Bruce Wayne happy for once.

Nothing was going to live up to "The Dark Knight," especially after Heath Ledger's death in 2008.

However, Tom Hardy did turn in an iconic performance in "The Dark Knight Rises" as Bane, a psychopathic anarchist determined to blow Gotham to smithereens. In 2012, it was hard to go anywhere without hearing someone doing their best Bane impression.

The plot of this movie doesn't really make any sense, and the twist involving Miranda Tate's true identity is underwhelming, but it's almost impossible for any Christopher Nolan movie to be bad.

The ending, which sees Bruce fake his death, leave his Bat possessions to John Blake (full name Robin John Blake), and then take a European vacation with Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman, is just sweet. Try to watch the moment when Alfred sees Bruce is actually alive and well at an Italian café without getting emotional.

"War for the Planet of the Apes" concluded Caesar's three-film arc beautifully, if not bittersweetly.

We've decided that "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" (2011), "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (2014), and "War for the Planet of the Apes" (2017) are their own little franchise, since they're not connected to the original '60s franchise, and the recent "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" takes place hundreds of years in the future.

If you tune in to these three films, you'll see the complete collapse of human society coinciding with the rise of Caesar, a super-intelligent ape played masterfully by Andy Serkis. Caesar is a better leader than almost anyone, real or fictional, as he's wise, open-minded, and dedicated to keeping his family safe.

Watching him evolve over these three movies is a gift, and while he doesn't have what most might call a traditionally happy ending, he does end the series at peace.

"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" is epic.

"The Return of the King," released in 2003, won a record-breaking 11 Academy Awards upon its release: best picture, director, adapted screenplay, art direction, costume design, film editing, makeup, original score, original song, sound mixing, and visual effects.

Even the Academy agreed that the power of this film, which concluded the long and arduous journey of Frodo and Sam to destroy the ring at Mordor, cannot be denied.

It doesn't matter that this movie has at least three separate endings; we'll gladly take them all to spend more time with Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Gandalf … the list goes on.

"Blade Runner 2049" is one of the best sci-fi movies of the 21st century.

The ending of the original 1982 "Blade Runner" has been debated since it was released: Was Deckard, played by Harrison Ford, a replicant (a realistic android) or not?

You might think that "Blade Runner 2049," released in 2017 would answer that pressing question. And you'd be wrong.

Instead, "Blade Runner 2049" focuses on a new blade runner, K (Ryan Gosling), who is revealed to be a replicant almost immediately. He begins to question his own reality and memories, and goes on a mission to find the long-missing Deckard to get answers.

While this movie doesn't answer every question from the original, the story is compelling, the visuals are stunning, and it's always a treat to see Ford on screen.

"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 2" ended with an epilogue showing us Katniss and Peeta would be OK.

After the success of the two-part "Harry Potter" finale, many other YA adaptations tried the same move, including "The Hunger Games," which split the final book, "Mockingjay," into two films.

The second film, released in 2015, finally saw a full-on civil war break out in the dystopian country of Panem. Our heroine Katniss, played by Jennifer Lawrence, confronted her nemesis President Snow, played by the late great Donald Sutherland, and also learned that not everyone on the side of the rebellion was good, either.

The final confrontation, in which Katniss chooses whether to execute Snow or his replacement, President Coin (Julianne Moore), is one of the most tense scenes in the entire franchise.

Just like in the book, the film ends with an epilogue showing that Katniss and Peeta, while traumatized, will keep living in spite of the tragedies around them.

On the other hand, we'll never know what happens to Tris because "Allegiant" was never supposed to be the final film in the "Divergent" series.

The "Divergent" trilogy is perhaps one of the worst YA adaptations of all time, and it's not only because it wasn't supposed to just be a trilogy.

"Divergent" is based on the book series of the same name, and the movie adaptation was a clear move to capitalize on the success of another dystopian franchise, "The Hunger Games."

But the mythology is confusing, the characters aren't likable, and the enemy isn't compelling.

The last film, 2016's "Allegiant," did so poorly at the box office — it made $179 million on a $110 budget, according to Deadline — that the final film was ultimately canceled.

That was an unfortunate decision for fans since the film ends on a cliffhanger.

The less we think about "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker," the better.

What else is there to say about "Rise of Skywalker," which follows up the great "Last Jedi" by dismantling almost every plot point it made?

After taking an encouraging step into the future, "The Rise of Skywalker" turns the franchise's focus back into the past, involving Palpatine, who somehow returned after his death in "Return of the Jedi."

The discourse around "Star Wars" has become toxic in the 21st century, and we're ready for a new series that ditches the Skywalkers, the Solos, and the Palpatines for good.

You could call "Dark Phoenix" or "The New Mutants" the last 21st Century Fox "X-Men" movie. Neither one was great.

Disney acquired 21st Century Fox in 2019, finally getting ownership of the X-Men and the Fantastic Four so they could be integrated into the MCU.

But before that could happen, the final Fox "X-Men" movies had to be released. First up, the distressing "Dark Phoenix," which is the second ill-fated attempt to adapt the Phoenix Saga to the big screen from the comics.

Fans didn't get enough time with Sophie Turner's Jean Grey to care about her descent into madness, nor did they care about Tye Sheridan's Cyclops' attempts to help her.

The real bright spot of these movies was the relationship between James McAvoy's Professor X and Michael Fassbender's Magneto — and Magneto doesn't even enter this film until the one-hour mark. It's disappointing that this was our farewell to this version of these characters.

But technically, the last "X-Men" film released by Fox was 2020's "New Mutants," which was delayed time and time again and finally dumped during the pandemic. However, it's also disappointing — it doesn't have anything to do with our established characters.

Why did they decide to conclude the "Jurassic World" trilogy with a film that barely has any dinosaurs in it?

The final "Jurassic World" movie (for now) was "Jurassic World Dominion," which was released in 2022.

It brought back legacy characters Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), and Alan Grant (Sam Neill), which was a relief since the characters played by Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard were so bland, we forgot their names immediately after seeing the movie.

There are dinosaurs in this movie, but not many. Instead, the main antagonist of this movie is a swarm of giant locusts. Yes, locusts.

According to Deadline, there's going to be another "Jurassic World" movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey, Rupert Friend, and Mahershala Ali, so hopefully it's a better story than this was.

The last-ever DCEU movie was "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom," which makes us sad.

The DCEU (the DC Extended Universe) was just never able to compete with the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). There were 15 films in the DCEU, and none of them (except maybe "Wonder Woman") came close to the level of quality over at Marvel.

That's why Warner Bros. tapped James Gunn and Peter Safran to restart the entire thing with the DCU (DC Universe), which will launch in 2025 with "Superman."

That means that the last DCEU movie we ever got was 2023's "Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom," which is perfectly fine, but does nothing to wrap up the many loose ends of the DCEU.

"Spider-Man 3" set us up perfectly for a fourth movie, but it wasn't meant to be.

"Spider-Man 3," released in 2007, ends with Peter and MJ tentatively getting back together while mourning the death of their mutual friend Harry Osborn. We were invested in what was next for Peter and MJ as they reckoned with what had happened over the course of the previous film.

Also, Dr. Curt Connors was a character in two of these movies without ever turning into his villainous comic counterpart, the Lizard. We're still waiting for that payoff.

We got some closure when Tobey Maguire's version of Peter appeared in the 2022 film "Spider-Man: No Way Home," but we want more.

The last time we'll see Captain Jack Sparrow is most likely "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales," which is bleak.

We'd argue that "Pirates of the Caribbean" should've ended after the third film, "At World's End," in 2007.

The next film, "On Stranger Tides," ditched most of the familiar characters, which is a problem — Jack is better when he's a zany side character doing his own thing, while characters like Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann have their own arcs and carry the emotional weight of the story.

"Dead Men Tell No Tales," released in 2017, learned from that lesson by bringing back Captain Barbossa and introducing Henry (the son of Will and Elizabeth) and his love interest, Carina.

Unfortunately, neither Henry nor Carina is that compelling, and Depp seems like he's operating on autopilot in his fifth outing as Captain Jack.

According to Entertainment Weekly, producer Jerry Bruckheimer is still hopeful that a sixth movie starring Depp will be made, in addition to a female-focused reboot starring Margot Robbie.

We should've let the Connor family rest after "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." Instead, we got four more bad films, ending with "Terminator: Dark Fate."

"Terminator" and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," both directed by James Cameron, are two of the best action movies of all time.

"Judgment Day" also ends on a definitive note, with our heroes preventing the evil computer system known as Skynet from ever being invented.

Of course, Hollywood couldn't let it end there. "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" made it clear that none of what happened in "Judgment Day" mattered — the machines were still coming.

"Terminator Salvation" is sort of a prequel, but also semi-ignores everything about the other movies. And "Terminator Genisys" fully ignores all the events of the previous films and is yet another reboot.

Finally, after the poor performances and receptions of these sequels, we arrive at 2019's "Terminator: Dark Fate," which yet again ignores everything that happened after "Judgment Day" and reunites stars Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton.

"Dark Fate" is certainly better than the three previous films, but it was ultimately unnecessary and, according to Screen Rant, was a huge box-office bomb.

Our opinion is that this franchise needs to be over.

• Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine, curtailing federal regulatory power.
• Chevron doctrine allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws like the Clean Air Act.
• Biden's climate policies, including limits on power plant emissions, could face threats.

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a decades-long legal precedent that has empowered the federal government to regulate the environment and other issues, unleashing a potential threat to President Joe Biden's climate policies.

The court overruled the Chevron doctrine, one of the most important principles guiding federal regulation for the past 40 years. It held that when the laws that Congress writes are ambiguous, courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretation, as long as it's reasonable.

Now, however, it could be harder for agencies to address a wide range of policy areas, including the environment, health, and labor and employment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the decision, joined by five conservative justices. The three liberal justices dissented.

The ruling lands as President Joe Biden has raced to finalize a flurry of rules to combat climate change. Over the last year, the Environmental Protection Agency has set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas infrastructure. The agency for the first time put limits on toxic "forever chemicals," also known as PFAS, in drinking water. All of those regulations are the targets of lawsuits from Republican-led states, the fossil-fuel industry, or other businesses.

Legal analysts widely expected the Supreme Court's decision. The Chevron doctrine has long been a target of business groups and conservatives who argued it allows federal bureaucrats to overstep their authority on issues related not only to the environment but also to broad swaths of the economy, such as workplace safety, telecom, and finance.

The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority is similarly skeptical of federal agencies' power, as past rulings have shown.

On Thursday, the court put a temporary hold on the EPA's plan to reduce air pollution from power plants and pipelines that blow across state lines while a lawsuit plays out in a lower court. Last year, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed how many wetlands EPA can regulate to keep them clean. In 2022, the court limited the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, leading the Biden administration to issue another plan under the Clean Air Act that it hopes can withstand legal challenges.

How did this case end up at the Supreme Court?

The plea to overturn the Chevron doctrine came to the court in two cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases involved commercial fishermen who opposed fees they had to pay to have federal observers aboard their vessels to prevent overfishing.

The lawyers representing the commercial fisherman are from the Cause of Action Institute, a nonprofit group in the libertarian network built by Charles Koch, the petrochemicals billionaire who has advocated for deregulation.

They argued the Chevron doctrine injures small businesses and individuals who have little power to influence federal agencies.

Both the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit — citing the Chevron doctrine — upheld the rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that requires herring fisherman to pay for observers on their boats.