Tag: News

  • It’s not just boomers — millennials also have a serious stuff problem

    Baby boomer surrounded by piles of toys, clothing, memorabilia, and keepsakes.

    I find myself cackling on the phone as Steve Johnson, 72, wades through his basement in the Atlanta suburbs, describing "all the crap" his four adult children have left behind. There are vinyl records, Braves bobble-heads, Pink Floyd posters, a drum, guitar stands, books, mounds of CDs. "Is this a picture of Bob Marley? Oh my God. Bob Marley is in my basement still," Johnson says, one of half a dozen exclamations invoking the Almighty's name during our conversation. His daughter's old exercise ball gets an audible, "Ugh." The camping gear from his kids' festival days gets another, "Oh my God." A violin from a child's ill-fated middle-school music career gives rise to an, "Ope."

    "Sorry as I walk through memory lane here," he says.

    Johnson, who recently retired, has asked his kids to figure out what to do with everything they've left behind in their family home, with limited success. "Best I can tell, they don't care anymore, which is fine," he says. Except getting rid of all the stuff can be surprisingly hard — Goodwill, other charities, and secondhand stores won't take just anything. During a remodel, he used a half-full dumpster to offload some things, but he didn't love doing it. "I feel bad about that, honestly, just trashing stuff," he says, sounding exasperated as he spots an old flamingo in the basement that his wife probably wants.

    Much has been made — including by yours truly — of the impending avalanche of baby boomers' stuff. But in boomers' defense, they are not the only ones who've accumulated useless things they can't bring themselves to get rid of. Many younger generations — Gen X, millennials, and, soon enough, Gen Z — are using their parents' homes as storage units. They haven't failed to launch, they've just failed to load up their rocketships, leaving their parents drowning in yearbooks, prom dresses, and Little League trophies.

    Many storage freeloaders have built lives and families of their own, and they don't have the time or energy to whittle down their old comic-book collections or toss out the college notes piled up in their parents' garages. Others still haven't bought homes or are living in small spaces, hoping that someday they'll have room for everything they left behind — even though "someday" is increasingly looking like once they're AARP eligible. Their parents may feel time closing in, but they don't feel that same urgency.

    When something still lives at your dad's house, it's easy to pretend it's not your problem — even though it very much is. That's how adulthood works: the gradual but jarring realization that the responsibility is yours.


    When people move out of their parents' homes, it's natural for them to leave things behind — (hopefully) nobody's hauling their childhood toys to the college dorms or filling their first apartment's closets with high school outfits. Even when people get a place of their own, it's often in tighter quarters than the homes they grew up in. Leaving things with their parents seems not only convenient but also logical. Plus, many older parents like to keep their children's stuff around. It helps mitigate empty-nest syndrome, allowing them to continue being the anchors of the family. Or, they just feel weird about throwing their kids' things out.

    The result: Mom and Dad don't want to cut the strings, and the kids want the option of keeping their stuff without the responsibility.

    "A lot of times, the parents just feel like it's not their place to make a decision," says Mindy Godding, the owner of Abundance Organizing in Virginia. Meanwhile, their children just kick the can down the road. "Instead of having to actually go through that stuff and make some decisions, the kid doesn't want to deal with it."

    They haven't failed to launch, they've just failed to load up their rocketships.

    Alex Kovalenko, 44, knows he should move the junk that's taking up a big chunk of space in his dad's work warehouse about 30 minutes away for a decade. But Kovalenko and his wife, who live in the Toronto suburbs, have three kids and full-time jobs, and they feel like they're just too busy to carve out the time to sort through it all. He doesn't know what he'd do with everything anyway, and doubts he'd make much money selling it. "I don't think it's fair," he says, especially since his dad's paying for and needs the space, "but I don't think we have any other option that's feasible at this time." His wife has suggested carving out a couple of weeks next summer to go through everything, but that would cut into vacation.

    Kristina Markos, 41, is also in the not-dealing-with-it stage. Her in-laws still house stuff above their garage that she and her husband left behind when they moved from Chicago to Boston back in 2013. Her in-laws don't have plans to downsize, and if they do, she figures she'll fly out and rent a U-Haul. "Today, it's not posing a problem for anybody," she says. Markos hopes that her Gen Alpha kids will want some of the things she's stowed away once they're old enough to move out, including curtain rods, sheets, pillows, and tools, after all, her father-in-law just shipped out an old trumpet for her son. "That's the sustainability piece and the money-saving piece where I think it works for everybody," she says. Trumpet aside, I wonder what condition many of the possessions she's described will be in by the time her kids head to college, or whether Gen Alpha, like their millennial parents, will spurn their elders' hand-me-downs.

    For some people, it's not just logistics or laziness that get in the way. Grief and guilt can turn a small box of old stuff into an emotional minefield. Ripley Neff is acutely aware of the headache it can be to get rid of abandoned possessions. She was forced to sort through a lifetime of physical memories when her grandmother died in 2022 and again when her mother died in 2024. Perhaps that's part of why she avoids dealing with the stuff she's got stowed away in the room she grew up in at her living grandmother's house, who she calls her "Grammy." Neff, 31, and her husband have just bought a house in Memphis, but she has no immediate plans to take all those odds and ends with her, and her grandmother doesn't seem pressed about it. Her husband encouraged her to get ahead of it, but she's been thrust into a situation many people don't encounter until they're later in adulthood: being in charge. "There are times when I know he's right, but then there are also times when I feel like it's all being put as my responsibility, and I am the child and the grandchild," she says. "I wish someone else would think about this, too."


    These types of dynamics are nearly universal. The more I asked around, the more stories bubbled up. One friend acknowledged that while it's a little ridiculous to have saved all of her middle school and high school notes for 20-some years, it's been a hoot going through them with her parents. A colleague mentioned his parents have declared that the stuff they've stored for him and his siblings be reduced to a two-box maximum over the holidays. One woman told me she was too afraid to have her stuff shipped from her parents' home because in a previous attempt to send a few boxes, prized possessions had been lost. I am guilty on this front as well — last Christmas, my mom pulled out a box of old Barbies I didn't remember existed. Instead of giving my blessing for them to be sold on eBay, I insisted I'd take care of it. I did not.

    Sometimes, what we see is the parents have the sentimental attachment, and they're projecting that on the kid.

    This entire conversation is about more than boxes and Barbies. It's about the emotional weight we put on physical objects, the obligations we have to our loved ones, and the fear of letting go. Throwing away college notes and textbooks means finally admitting you're not going to grad school. Agreeing to give away the drums in your parents' basement is the death knell of your rock-and-roll dreams. On the other side of the equation, older parents often put more weight on their kids' stuff than their kids do — they remember more vividly that third-grade spelling bee victory or the first lost tooth. Parents feel a sense of responsibility as guardians of their children's things and memories.

    Godding recalls working with a client whose two children's bedrooms were still in pristine '90s condition. When the mom reached out to her kids, her son insisted that he be allowed to go through everything before she made any decisions, and her daughter said she didn't care about anything and could toss it. "Her mom turns to me and is like, 'I think she's going to regret that decision, I should put that in a storage unit for her,'" Godding says. "Sometimes, what we see is the parents have the sentimental attachment, and they're projecting that on the kid."

    The thing about this dynamic is that eventually decisions have to be made. No one lives forever, and even if they did, very few people would want their attics filled with their progeny's My Little Ponies and Hot Wheels for all eternity. These leftover items become an unspoken negotiation between generations, and grievances that, at some point, have to be aired. Both sides tend to tread carefully, afraid to make the wrong call.

    A couple of years ago, Nicholas Budler's uncle set a deadline on the stuff he'd been stashing at his place since college. So Budler, now 29, put together a "keep" pile of things that could fit into his adult apartment in San Francisco: his degrees, a homerun baseball he'd caught as a kid, and one trinket from each of the important places he'd traveled to. He tossed clothes, decor, and useless chargers.

    "That's where it's like, 'Can I envision this in the future in my actual home now as an adult, or did I just want to keep this somewhere without having it to be in my space?'" he says. "If it's moving from junk drawer to junk drawer, it's probably not something that you really care about."

    Budler does regret giving away so many books, and he's now replenishing his library.

    For the Gen Xers in the room, I have some good news for you: You're actually pretty good about this! Millennials are generally guiltier of treating their parents' homes like giant lockers, Godding says. They don't have the independence streak Gen X latchkey kids did.


    I first got in touch with Johnson, the boomer dad in the basement, because he emailed me after a story I'd written about the impending baby boomer stuffpolcalypse, asking, "What's a boomer to do???" with their kids' stuff. So, I turned to the experts.

    When I ask Tonya Kubo, who until recently worked for Clutter Free Academy, a platform dedicated to all things decluttering, she tells me older parents need to have a "hard conversation" with themselves to decide whether they're keeping their children's stuff because they want to or simply out of obligation. If the answer is the latter, the kids have to take responsibility for it now, because "the fact is they're going to have to take responsibility for it when you die," she says. She recalls working with a mother who was holding onto three of her son's motorcycles in her garage while she and her husband paid for two storage units filled with their own things. Kubo had assumed the son was in his early 20s — he was 40, married, with kids. "It had never occurred to her" to ask him to get rid of them. Once she did, they were sold in two weeks.

    For kids, it's essential to confront the reality that if they're comfortable not having something now, they probably don't need it or value it as much as they think. "If I don't have a place for it now, am I really going to make a place for it later? And when I do want to make a place for it, does it even fit into my life?" she says.

    Godding encourages her downsizing clients to send their kids photos of items and ask whether they matter to them. "We're always trying to peel apart the storytelling," she says.

    Every generation in this country has a consumption problem.

    Another tip: Set a deadline or, at the very least, a goal. The kids don't have to spend the entirety of the next visit combing through their stuff, but they can set aside some time to edit it down. And if you're thinking about a storage unit, really think about it. Again, if you don't want the things today, or even don't have the space for them, how likely is it that you will ever change?

    As for where to take things, Godding prefers Buy Nothing groups and local charitable organizations. While some people may have their gripes with Goodwill, it's often a convenient option. Still, the truth is that it's hard to offload a lot of things if they go out of style or are difficult to handle, from furniture to figurines. And the American consumer machine churns on buying, not reusing.

    "Every generation in this country has a consumption problem," she says. "We are hardwired to buy new."

    Inevitably, what this may wind up looking like is Gen Xers, millennials, Zoomers, and beyond sitting with all their accumulated stuff in their own homes eventually, perhaps on top of the stuff they received from their parents. That's what's happened to Jon Spike, 37, from Wisconsin. A month after he and his wife bought a house, his mom showed up with boxes of the stuff she'd kept from his childhood. Now, they're sitting in his basement. The stuff cycle begins anew.


    Emily Stewart is a senior correspondent at Business Insider, writing about business and the economy.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Russia is still exporting plenty of oil — but earning far less to fund its war on Ukraine

    Russian President Vladimir Putin looks on.
    Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    • Russia's oil exports remain steady, but energy revenues have dropped sharply this year.
    • US sanctions on major Russian oil firms has forced Moscow to reroute shipments via smaller producers.
    • Falling oil revenues strain Russia's funding for its war in Ukraine.

    Russia's oil companies are still shipping nearly the same amount of oil after the US Treasury cracked down on its biggest producers recently — but the country's energy profits are falling fast, a Goldman Sachs analysis shows.

    In late October, the US Treasury announced sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft, Russia's biggest oil producers. The changes sent seaborne shipments from these companies down 42%, to about 1.7 million barrels a day.

    However, Russia's total oil exports slipped by just 100,000 barrels per day after the sanctions came into effect. This means that Russia rapidly rerouted shipments through smaller, non-sanctioned producers.

    "Russian oil trading networks are reorganizing quickly while Russia oil exports revenues dropped," analysts from Goldman wrote in a note published on Tuesday.

    Even so, the steady flow of barrels masks a far deeper financial squeeze.

    Russia's oil export revenues, measured in rubles, have plunged 50% this year, tumbling from the equivalent of 7.6% of GDP to just 3.7%, according to Goldman's analysis.

    The bank's report landed just as the Russian Finance Ministry disclosed that oil and gas tax revenues fell 34% from a year ago, underscoring the fiscal strain.

    The revenue collapse stems from a combination of a stronger ruble and sagging Brent prices, widening discounts on Russian crude as buyers demand steeper price cuts to offset the risk of sanctions.

    The divergence between stable exports and collapsing revenue has major implications for Moscow's ability to finance its war in Ukraine.

    Oil and gas revenues have historically accounted for more than a third of Russia's federal budget, and energy remains one of the country's most significant sources of funding.

    But even as Russia boosts weapons production and ramps up defense spending, the money flowing in to support that buildup is shrinking.

    The timing is particularly sensitive. Ukraine has intensified its drone campaign against Russia's energy infrastructure, a trend Goldman highlights as a growing geopolitical risk.

    Despite those attacks, Brent prices have barely moved, suggesting markets remain unconvinced that Russian supply is in immediate danger — a dynamic that keeps global prices low and Russia's revenues even lower.

    An end to the war in Ukraine appears elusive nearly four years after Russia's full-scale invasion, despite renewed diplomatic attempts.

    On Wednesday, the Kremlin said President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump's top envoys did not reach a compromise on a possible peace deal after a five-hour meeting.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Annie Leibovitz, 76, says being an older mom means her daughters push her to take care of herself

    Annie Leibovitz
    Annie Leibovitz says she was in her late 40s when she realized she didn't want to miss out on motherhood.

    • Annie Leibovitz, 76, says being an older mom comes with its own set of challenges.
    • The photographer says her three daughters urge her to prioritize her health so she can live a longer life.
    • Beyond parenting, Leibovitz says she enjoys growing older because it lets her slow down.

    Annie Leibovitz, 76, says she has worries about being an older mom.

    In an appearance on Wednesday's episode of the "Wiser Than Me with Julia Louis-Dreyfus" podcast, the famous photographer spoke about the realities of becoming a parent later in life.

    Leibovitz recalled a moment in her late 40s when she suddenly realized she didn't want to miss out on motherhood.

    "You know, what happened was I was seeing my doctor, and I was just crying. I said, I realized it was my late forties. And I said, I just can't believe I'd let this time go by. And I haven't done this, and I haven't had children," she told host Julia Louis-Dreyfus.

    Leibovitz said her longtime partner, author Susan Sontag, who died in 2004, "wasn't interested in children."

    "And I would talk about it every now and then, and she was not interested. Besides, we didn't really have that kind of relationship. We had two separate apartments," Leibovitz said. "We had our own world, but we really supported each other tremendously."

    However, Leibovitz's doctor told her she still had that option. "So he said to me, 'You can do it.' I said, 'Really?' And I did it," Leibovitz said, adding that she has three daughters who are now in their twenties.

    Having kids later in life has made her more aware of the realities of parenting as an older mom, she said.

    "Still, I mean, if I'm having any issue now about being older, is that I decided to have them older. And my older daughter gets mad at me if I don't take care of myself. 'Mommy, I want you to live longer.' And you worry about that," Leibovitz said.

    However, she says she wants to continue focusing on her career and give her daughters space rather than hovering over them.

    "And not necessarily being so smothering and so close, because I just knew I was an older mom, and I knew they were going to have to deal with me leaving earlier than possibly being around," Leibovitz said, adding that part of the reason for having more than one child was so they would have each other.

    But beyond parenting, Leibovitz says aging has been something that she has come to genuinely appreciate.

    "I just love getting older. You kind of know what you're doing. It doesn't mean what you're doing is good or better or whatever. It's still hard work, but you kind of know what you're doing, and there's something really nice about that," she said.

    She doesn't have to rush through everything anymore, she added.

    "And then things, I think, naturally are slowing down, kind of after running around like crazy, starting when I was very young. And so it's nice to kind of slow down a little bit," Leibovitz said.

    Leibovitz isn't the only one who has spoken about having children later in life.

    In May 2024, Eva Mendes said it was a good thing she waited til she was 40 to have kids.

    "In my 20s, I shouldn't have even been around a child. I was foul-mouthed and smoking. I definitely could not have raised kids in any other era of my life but now," Mendes told People.

    Speaking to Business Insider in September 2024, Hilary Swank said she's happy to be an older mom. Swank gave birth to twins at age 48.

    "I'm in a place where I just have a lot more patience and a lot more grace to give, not just my children, but others around me," she said. "I can give them so much more than I could have at that point."

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Former top Russian general said he’d give ‘entire Russian intelligence community’ a failing grade for Ukraine invasion

    A convoy of Russian vehicles is seen on a road in Crimea.
    Russian army military vehicles are seen in Armyansk, Crimea, in February 2022.

    • A former commander of Russia's ground forces gave a rare candid take on the war in Ukraine.
    • Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin said Moscow was "once again unprepared" for war in early 2022.
    • He said Russian intelligence had misled the Kremlin about political sentiment in Ukraine.

    A former chief commander of Russian forces blasted the Kremlin's intelligence services last week for their early performance in Ukraine, saying they prompted an unprepared Moscow to launch its full-scale invasion.

    The remarks by Vladimir Chirkin, a colonel general who led Russia's ground forces from 2012 to 2013, are unusually critical for a top Russian military official, even among those no longer serving.

    "Everyone, if you recall, started saying in February 2022 that the war would be over in three days. We'll beat them all now," said Chirkin in an interview on November 27 with Russian radio outlet RBC.

    "But unfortunately, it didn't work out that way. I would give our entire Russian intelligence community a failing grade," he added. The general's criticism was highlighted among Ukrainian circles this week by Denis Kazanskyi, a Ukrainian political journalist.

    In the RBC interview, Chirkin said that Moscow had "traditionally" miscalculated the balance of power, underestimating its enemy and overestimating the performance of its own forces.

    "To be fair, I don't intend to criticize anyone, but in my opinion, Russia was once again unprepared for war, as it had been in previous years and centuries," he said.

    Chirkin said that Russian leadership had been misled into thinking that 70% of Ukraine's population supported a pro-Russian government.

    "It turned out to be exactly the opposite. 30% for us and 70% against," he said. "During the first few weeks, we were taught a seriously cruel lesson."

    Chirkin also said Russian forces likely suffered in the early stages of the invasion from the "Tbilisi syndrome," which describes the situation in which troops are afraid to make tactical decisions without orders from their superiors.

    Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin walks next to Vladimir Putin in 2013.
    Col. Gen. Vladimir Chirkin organized the Victory Day parade in 2013, before he was ousted on bribery charges.

    Chirkin's assessment aligns largely with Western and Ukrainian analyses of the war's early months, which found that Russia severely misjudged its ability to seize the Kyiv region. After weeks of confusion among its troops, poor logistics, and a failure to achieve air superiority, the Kremlin withdrew from the capital area in late March.

    The general's candor appeared to surprise even his interviewer, RBC's Yuri Tamantsev.

    "To be honest, I didn't expect such frankness at the very beginning of our conversation," Tamantsev said.

    Russia has outlawed sharing "false information" about the war in Ukraine, which can carry a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. Human rights groups, however, say the law has been used to punish Russians who protest or criticize the invasion.

    Still, Chirkin, whose military rank is the rough equivalent of a three-star general in NATO, stopped short of publicly finding fault with Moscow's stated premise for invading Ukraine.

    The rest of his interview with Tamantsev focused on how Russian warfare has evolved over the last few years and how its troops might achieve Moscow's vision of victory.

    Chirkin was stripped of his rank and command in 2013, when he was accused of bribery. He was convicted in August 2015 of accepting a bribe of 450,000 rubles and sentenced to a labor camp for five years, but the sentence was commuted in December.

    The colonel general, who said the bribe was a result of fraud by his subordinates, had his rank reinstated.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Why YouTube Recap flopped and Spotify Wrapped is buzzing

    Youtube Recap Spotify Wrapped
    YouTube launched its first Recap, but users say it's inaccurate and barebones. Spotify Wrapped, meanwhile, dominated the internet — again — with new features.

    • YouTube launched "Recap" on Tuesday, its first year-end roundup for users.
    • While Spotify Wrapped dominated social media this week, YouTube's version barely registered.
    • Some users say Recap fell short, with inaccuracies and missing data.

    While the internet is buzzing over this year's Spotify Wrapped — especially with its new "listening age" feature — another platform has slipped out its year-end recap with much less fanfare.

    YouTube unveiled "Recap" on Tuesday, its first attempt at a Wrapped-style experience. The platform said "Recap" is available to US users with a global rollout coming later this week.

    The feature compiles up to 12 cards that showcase users' top channels, interests, and how their tastes have shifted over time. It also assigns them a viewing personality based on their watch history.

    Meanwhile, Spotify Wrapped kept its signature stats — minutes listened, top artists, and artist messages — and introduced a slate of new features this year. Users get a "listening age," a fan leaderboard, placement into one of six listening "clubs," and a listening archive that highlights their most memorable streaming days.

    Consumer apps, from novice linguist favorite Duolingo to athlete-focused Strava, have rolled out these annual reviews in recent years to build buzz and keep users coming back. Spotify started the feature in 2015, so it has a big leg up on YouTube.

    Users online praised Spotify Wrapped

    Online users made their pick clear. Social media posts praised Spotify for leveling up the experience with new features, while many called YouTube's Recap a flop.

    In a discussion thread on Reddit, many users wrote that this year's Spotify Wrapped was better than last year's, with some highlighting the listening archive as a notable addition.

    "I liked the little report (despite being generated by AI) at the end because it pinpointed a special day in the year for me," a user on Reddit wrote.

    "They clearly listened to what people complained about last year with the lack of actual data and random AI," the user added.

    I also found the listening report delightful. It surfaced a day when I had what Spotify called a "one-song relay" — I looped a track 70 times. It was the day I discovered KATSEYE, the global pop girl group featured in Gap's ad, making the recap feel oddly personal and accurate.

    Spotify Wrapped Report
    I looped KATSEYE's "Touch" 70 times on the day I discovered the global pop girl group.

    In another Reddit discussion thread, users were up in arms over their "listening age." Many said the number Spotify assigned them was wildly off — either far younger than their real age or much older.

    As Business Insider's Katie Notopoulous wrote, the feature has gotten some of our colleagues' ages hilariously wrong. I was given a listening age of 20 — a decade younger — likely thanks to a year of streaming K-pop hits and other trending tracks. My editor, in her 30s, was told she had the listening habits of a 71-year-old because she loves 70s folk rock.

    A friend of mine called Spotify "rude" for assigning him a listening age of 41. He's only a few years off, which suggests how touchy this metric has been for some users.

    Debates about the listening age have dominated social feeds and group chats. YouTube Recap, meanwhile, has attracted almost no excitement, and its reviews have been overwhelmingly negative.

    YouTube Recap is 'AI garbage'

    On Reddit, users said YouTube's new Recap missed the mark. Many complained that it got their stats wrong and skipped the features they actually care about.

    "YouTube is the main platform I watch, so I was excited to see they added a recap this year," wrote one user, who started a thread titled "2025 YouTube recap is AI slop."

    But their excitement quickly faded. The feature listed their top viewing interest as "sewing tutorials," even though the user said they had "never watched a sewing tutorial."

    "It's clearly just AI garbage," the user added.

    Many agreed that most of the stats were "flat-out wrong," with several highlighting that the feature seemed to skew viewing interests toward AI-related topics they never engaged with.

    Another Redditor wrote that YouTube didn't include two of the most fundamental metrics: total videos watched and total watch time. They called the Recap feature "lame," and another user replied, "That's all I really cared about."

    I opened my YouTube Recap on my personal account and was met with tacky, techno-club music straight out of the early 2000s.

    By the third slide, YouTube listed my top interests as "iPhone features," "pop culture news," and "personal finance tips." I spent a couple of weeks earlier this year watching iPhone reviews while debating whether to buy the iPhone 16, but that phase was brief. I'm fairly certain most of my YouTube time went elsewhere.

    A few slides later, YouTube said my top channels were a news documentary account and "Netflix K-Content." That made the earlier "iPhone features" ranking feel even more random.

    Without the basics, such as watch time, the rankings didn't feel complete or meaningful.

    The recap then classified my traits as "tech-savvy," "culture-curious," and "financially aware," and summed up my personality as a "curious mind."

    Recap personality
    YouTube Recap said my personality type was "the curious mind."

    It wasn't as fun as Spotify Wrapped, which sorted me into a club called the "Full Charge Crew" and crowned me the "Leader" because my listening "strongly aligned with club values." Wrapped gave me a distinctive club identity and a slick logo I could compare with friends, making YouTube's generic "curious mind" feel flat.

    Spotify Wrapped Club
    Spotify Wrapped placed me in the "Full Charge Crew" club and crowned me the "Leader."

    YouTube Recap's take on my evolving viewing habits wasn't much better. The feature said that in early 2025, I was focused on "Pop Culture," even though that period was clearly my iPhone-review rabbit hole. And I'm sure I watched pop culture videos consistently throughout the year, not just in one window.

    To be fair, this is YouTube's first attempt at a Recap, and it feels like a version 1.0. Until YouTube nails that part, Wrapped will keep winning.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Melinda French Gates slams billionaires who aren’t giving away enough of their wealth

    US philanthropist Melinda French Gates speaks during a panel titled "Digital Infrastructure: Stacking Up the Benefits" at the annual spring meetings at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) headquarters in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2023.
    Melinda French Gates said the wealthy in the US were not giving away enough of their wealth.

    • Melinda French Gates said billionaires are not giving away enough of their money.
    • She said those who have benefited from businesses in the US should give back "far more than they are."
    • Gates started the Giving Pledge with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in 2010.

    Melinda French Gates has a message for the ultrawealthy: Give more money away.

    In a Tuesday interview with Wired, Gates spoke about the Giving Pledge, a movement she started in 2010 with her ex-husband, Microsoft's cofounder Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett, the chair of Berkshire Hathaway.

    French Gates said that some of the people who signed the Giving Pledge, which encourages billionaires to donate a significant portion of their wealth, have been giving money at a "massive scale."

    "But have they given enough? No," she said.

    She said those who have amassed "enormous amounts of wealth" have benefited from the US's education system, regulatory environment, and venture capital system. French Gates is worth $17.2 billion, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

    "If you live in this country and started a business, you benefited from this country," French Gates said. "And I believe to whom much is given, much is expected, and they should be giving back more, far more than they are."

    She did not name specific billionaires in the interview.

    The Giving Pledge's website says that 250 individuals from 30 countries have taken the pledge. Its signatories include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Oracle's technology chief Larry Ellison, and venture capitalist Reid Hoffman.

    The website spotlights billionaires' contributions to various charities, such as philanthropist MacKenzie Scott's $70 million donation to the UNCF in September.

    French Gates cofounded and cochaired The Gates Foundation with Bill Gates before leaving in June 2024. She now runs Pivotal Ventures, a group of philanthropic organizations focusing on women's issues.

    French Gates' comments in the Wired interview echo those of singer Billie Eilish during her acceptance speech at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards in October. The guest list at the awards included billionaires like Zuckerberg and filmmaker George Lucas.

    "Love you all, but there's a few people in here that have a lot more money than me," Eilish said. "If you are a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties."

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • AT&T CEO says that young people should think about their careers in 4- to 5-year chapters

    John Stankey
    John Stankey said that those who embrace self learning will come out on top.

    • AT&T's CEO urges young people to view their careers in four- to five-year chapters.
    • John Stankey highlighted rapid technology changes and the need for ongoing self-education.
    • Tech leaders agree that self-driven learning and AI skills are key in today's job market.

    Young people should redesign their careers every few years, says AT&T's CEO.

    On an episode of the "In Good Company" podcast released on Wednesday, John Stankey said that the idea that you get a relevant college education is "quickly fading," so young people should own their learning.

    "You think about how fast technology is moving, how fast business models are moving," he said. "You have to think about your career in chapters that are four or five years."

    Stankey has worked at the telecom giant for over 41 years and has been leading the company since 2020.

    Every few years, he said people should build a new foundation and set of skills.

    "The only way you're going to be able to do that over the course of a life that may be 80 or 90 years is if you are really, really good about being the dean of your own education and having a process," he said.

    Stankey added that people have an unlimited amount of information at their fingertips, and AI has only raised the stakes by making information more accessible.

    "People who master that are going to probably be the ones who come out on top over time," he said.

    The AT&T CEO echoed advice given by other tech leaders such as Reid Hoffman and Naval Ravikant.

    LinkedIn cofounder Hoffman popularized the concept of becoming the CEO of your own career, saying that people must take responsibility for their own learning to thrive in a rapidly changing job market.

    On a June podcast, he said that young people should use their familiarity with AI as an advantage when seeking work.

    "You are generation AI. You are AI native. So bringing the fact that you have AI in your tool set is one of the things that makes you enormously attractive," Hoffman said.

    Ravikant, a tech investor who cofounded AngelList, advocates for the idea that formal education is a source of career opportunities, but true learning must be self-driven.

    Even before the explosion of AI, he called formal education "completely obsolete" because of the internet and compared it to a day care.

    "There used to be no such thing as self-guided learning. Now, if you actually have the desire to learn, everything is on the internet. You can go on Khan Academy. You can get MIT and Yale lectures online," he wrote in a 2020 blog post.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Bethenny Frankel says there’s one boundary every divorcing parent needs to keep

    Bethenny Frankel
    Bethenny Frankel says her almost 10-year-long divorce from her second husband was worse than her chaotic childhood.

    • Bethenny Frankel says her chaotic childhood couldn't compare to the trauma of her nearly decadelong divorce.
    • "I lost hair. I thought I would never survive it," the "Real Housewives of New York City" alum said.
    • Despite that, she said she "never" badmouthed her ex to their daughter.

    Bethenny Frankel says she shielded her daughter from nearly a decade of divorce drama.

    During an appearance on Wednesday's episode of "Call Her Daddy," Frankel said her almost 10-year-long divorce from her second husband, Jason Hoppy, was messier than her chaotic childhood.

    "I have seen my mother slit her wrists. I have lived a life, my whole life of chasing her into bathrooms, trying to catch her throwing up. I've been around guns, the mafia, the racetrack. I've been through everything. I've seen her beaten with an inch of her life with a phone," Frankel told host Alex Cooper. "Nothing compares to what my divorce was for 10 years."

    The "Real Housewives of New York City" alum married Hoppy, a businessman, in 2010, and they welcomed their daughter, Bryn, shortly after. The former couple announced their separation in 2012, and their divorce was finalized in 2021.

    "It was 10 years of my life. I lost hair. I thought I would never survive it. I didn't want to. I had to because of my daughter. I literally thought I'll never be happy again," Frankel said.

    Despite everything she was going through, Frankel said she "never" badmouthed her ex to their daughter.

    "I never talked bad in front of her. I mean, she energetically, I believe, felt it because it cracked open during the pandemic when she was 11," Frankel said.

    She added that it was a "lesson" every divorcing parent with young kids should keep in mind.

    "It's a long road. Your kids will become cognizant, and they will understand. You don't have to say it to them. You don't have to prove it to them," Frankel said. "You should never ever say a bad thing about the other parent ever, because it is the worst thing you could do to a child."

    Instead, Frankel said she makes sure her daughter knows she's loved and has even shared pieces of her own childhood with her.

    "You know, therapy is a big thing in my house, and I've been on it, and she's a beautiful, happy human being. She really is," Frankel said.

    Frankel isn't the only one who's spoken about keeping things positive for the kids after a split.

    Speaking to Stellar Magazine in April 2023, Jennifer Garner said she avoids reading any press coverage of her and her ex-husband, Ben Affleck.

    "I really work hard not to see either of us in the press," Garner told the outlet. "It doesn't make me feel good, even if it's something nice about one of us."

    In October 2023, Gwyneth Paltrow told Bustle that she and her ex-husband Chris Martin didn't want their kids to "experience the divorce as a trauma."

    "We knew that it would be hard, of course, but we didn't want them to ever feel in the middle, or that one of us was slagging off the other one," Paltrow said.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • These 3 charts show how the biggest private equity funds keep winning in a fundraising slowdown

    Sign outside the Blackstone headquarters.
    Sign outside the Blackstone headquarters.

    • There may be more private equity funds than McDonald's in the US, but there are signs of consolidation.
    • Nearly half of PE cash raised in 2025 so far has gone to the 10 largest funds, per a report.
    • It was also the lowest year on record for new funds closed, at just 41, per Pitchbook.

    In private equity, consolidation is now the name of the game.

    After a burst of new fund launches — enough for one KKR executive to joke last month that the US now has more private equity funds than McDonald's — more funding than ever is flowing into the biggest names.

    So far this year, nearly 46% of all private equity capital raised in 2025 has been secured by the 10 largest funds, up from 34.5% in 2024, according to PitchBook's private equity outlook report. PitchBook predicts that more than 40% will go to the largest funds in 2026 as well.

    This fundraising consolidation happens while fundraising is down substantially, with only $259 billion raised so far this year compared to $372.6 billion last year. But even as the absolute amount raised by the top funds has dropped 8% year-over-year to $118.3 billion, their overall share of the pie went up.

    Here are three charts from PitchBook's report that show how the biggest funds in private equity are likely to get even bigger.

    The top 10 funds are taking more of the fundraising haul than they have in the last 10 years

    Stacked column chart

    This chart breaks down the percentage of US private equity (and not credit) fundraising that went to the 10 largest funds. This year, the top 10 largest funds include two Blackstone funds and two Thoma Bravo funds, a Bain Capital fund, as well as funds from lesser-known names like Great Hill Partners.

    After five years, with the 10 largest funds making up an average of 35.8% of funds raised — and a 10-year average of 39% — the number jumped to 45.7% so far this year.

    10 biggest funds Capital committed (billions)
    Thoma Bravo Fund XVI $24.3
    Blackstone Capital Partners IX $21
    Veritas Capital Fund IX $14.4
    Bain Capital XIV $14
    Trident X Fund $11.5
    Thoma Bravo Discover Fund V $8.1
    Great Hill Equity Partners IX $7
    Providence Strategic Growth VI $6
    Blackstone Energy Transition Partners IV $5.6
    Linden Capital Partners $5.2

    With times tight for fundraising, asset allocators are choosing to go to the biggest players with their remaining capital. Even the biggest players are having a harder time fundraising compared to years past, but they're clearly doing better than their competitors.

    The consolidation story is even more striking when you examine the fundraising picture for the top three largest funds. The three largest raised $60.4 billion so far this year, accounting for 23.3% of the total amount raised, compared to $55.9 billion last year, which represented just 15% of the total amount raised.

    Forget flight to quality, there's a flight to experience

    Stacked column chart

    Capital may be flowing to the biggest players in large numbers, but it's also flowing to the most experienced firms. So far this year, 61% of capital raised has come from firms that have more than 10 funds in total. That's above the five-year average of 58%.

    So far this year, only 41 first-time funds have closed their fundraising this year, a record low number. The total amount of capital in these closed funds, $8.4 billion, is also near record lows, though 2015 saw only $7.7 billion closed across 90 funds.

    Small multiple column chart

    It's even harder than it was last year, when the industry closed 83 first-time funds, the previous record low. With asset allocators flocking to established, large investors, it's no surprise that the new launches are anemic.

    Read the original article on Business Insider
  • Jury hears how Netflix director lost a fortune on options trades — days after streamer sent him $11M for ‘visionary’ show

    Director Carl Erik Rinsch at a 2015 event in Los Angeles.
    Director Carl Erik Rinsch at a 2015 event in Los Angeles.

    • Director Carl Erik Rinsch is on trial in NY, fighting charges he scammed Netflix out of $11 million.
    • Prosecutors say Rinsch blew money meant for his sci-fi series on luxuries and playing the market.
    • On Tuesday, jurors saw how he lost a fortune on options trades soon after Netflix wired the cash.

    Director Carl Eric Rinsch made so many failed, seven-figure option bets after Netflix wired him $11 million that his broker at Wells Fargo tried — and failed — to stop him, a New York fraud jury heard on Tuesday.

    "I can afford to lose the money," Rinsch said, according to testimony by his former Wells Fargo advisor, Ronald See.

    And when the brokerage hit the brakes — limiting him to $250,000 per transaction — the show developer was undaunted.

    On March 30, 2019, just three weeks after receiving the $11 million, Rinsch instructed See, of Wells Fargo Advisors, to wire his remaining $8.5 million to Citibank so he could establish a new brokerage account with Charles Schwab.

    "They won't put restrictions on me there," Rinsch wrote See in a letter shown to jurors.

    Rinsch, 48, is on trial in federal court in Manhattan, fighting charges that he had no right to use the $11 million Netflix sent him on anything other than "White Horse," the 120-minute TV series he'd already spent $44 million of Netflix's money on. (Rinsch ultimately never finished a single episode of the clones-versus-humans sci-fi thriller.)

    Defense lawyers counter that the $11 million was actually Rinsch's contractually-promised payment for having completed principal photography, and was his money to spend as he pleased.

    Either way, testimony on Tuesday by two of Rinsch's former financial advisors showed that he was eager to spend the cash prosecutors say the director had quickly moved into his Wells Fargo account.

    The streamer wired Rinsch the $11 million on March 6, 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic halted film production worldwide.

    Over the next three weeks, he then lost some $5.8 million, almost all of it on highly risky options trades involving Gilead Sciences, which was developing COVID-19 treatment drugs. (See would earn a $22,000 fee on these losses, the defense pointed out on cross-examination.)

    The director was off to the races again as soon as he switched to Charles Schwab, according to testimony.

    "I could send $3 mm personal to get started," he wrote to his new financial advisor, Adam Checchi, who also testified on Tuesday.

    "I understood that to mean three million from his personal funds," Checchi said under questioning by a federal prosecutor.

    Checchi told jurors that Rinsch would soon lose almost $6 million more, mostly on failed, highly risky bets that Gilead's stock would rise and that the S&P 500 would decline.

    "I'm not a broad, diversify kind of guy," Rinsch explained in a late March 2020 email, adding that he pursues "aggressive" option trading "fully expecting to lose it all."

    Earlier in the day, former Netflix executive Peter Friedlander, who on Monday called Rinch's project "visionary," completed a second day of testimony.

    On overhead screens, defense attorney Benjamin Zeman showed Friedlander — and the jury — emails from August 2019, in which Rinsch begged for "immediate support" with casting in Brazil.

    "Show is set to collapse," Rinsch wrote.

    The defense is blaming the implosion of White Horse on Netflix's decision to pull support for the project in September 2020.

    In the email chain projected throughout the courtroom on Tuesday, Zeman attempted to show jurors that a year earlier, Friedlander was already cold toward the show developer's requests for help.

    "His own delays in decisions have caused this," Friedlander wrote in forwarding Rinsch's email to Mike Posey, an original series vice president, and others, including production executive Shelley Stevens and Rahul Bansal, an original series director.

    Rinsch would continue asking for support — and money — for another six months before Netflix forwarded the $11 million payment at the center of the trial. The project was ultimately written off by Netflix as a tax loss eight months later, in November 2020.

    Rinsch's trial is expected to continue through next week. He faces up to 90 years in prison if convicted of wire fraud, money laundering, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions.

    Read the original article on Business Insider