In context: Qualcomm and Arm haven't been on good terms for a while. The UK designer tried and ultimately failed to force the US chipmaker to stop using its IP. In it's back-and-forth battle, Qualcomm is now complaining to antitrust authorities that Arm is trying to hamper worldwide competition. Qualcomm recently had private meetings with three antitrust organizations about Arm's alleged anticompetitive behavior. Anonymous sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that this new global antitrust campaign came after Arm tried restricting Qualcomm's ability to build silicon products.According to the insiders, Qualcomm met with representatives from the European Commission, the Korea Fair Trade Commission, and the US FTC. The company alleges that Arm, a longtime partner in the mobile chip business, is restricting access to its microchip technology after running an "open network" of silicon IP for more than 20 years.Also read: Arm vs Qualcomm: mutually assured destructionQualcomm claims that Arm built a successful business model by forcing chip companies to rely exclusively on its processor technology and that the mobile ecosystem thrived as a result. However, things are now much different than they were two decades ago. Arm is trying to manufacture and sell chips, eliminating the need to go through third-party manufacturers and designers such as Qualcomm.In response, Arm provided Bloomberg with an official statement. The British corporation vows to respect its contractual obligations with its technology partners and refutes all allegations about its anticompetitive conduct. It claims that Qualcomm is desperately trying to create a competitive advantage by diverting attention from the two companies' ongoing commercial disputes.Earlier this year, Arm stopped trying to bar Qualcomm from using its intellectual property. The conflict originated from Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia, a chip startup with a previous licensing agreement with Arm. Qualcomm plans to include Nuvia's Arm-compatible tech in future Snapdragon processors, but Arm claims Qualcomm cannot just take possession of Nuvia's license without its approval. // Related StoriesQualcomm raised its antitrust complaint last December when representatives from the company met with FTC officials in Washington, DC. During the meeting, Qualcomm accused Arm of withholding some unspecified technology that should have been available through the existing license agreement between the two companies. More recently, Qualcomm voiced the same complaint with European authorities, stating that Arm seeks to compete directly with its own chip instead of providing the chip tech to third parties. It has now expanded its antitrust campaign to Korea.

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsApple connectivity when editing SeveranceThat marching band sceneFirst we were told by Ben Stiller that Severance wont have another three year wait for the next season, and now hes spilling everything about its making.Well, its more Severance supervising editor and three time Emmy Award nominee, Geoffrey Richman, thats giving out all the technical details but Stiller is clearly loving working with Apple.Recommended VideosRichman is all in with Apple and uses a combination of his iMac, Mac mini and MacBook Pro to work on editing the show.Please enable Javascript to view this contentTalking about the power of his setup he said: In cutting the marching band, there were about 70 angles and takes to choose from, so we synced them all up in one multicam clip with banks of nine [33 arrays].Being able to play nine angles simultaneously in real time and switch quickly between all the different options made it a whole lot easier to find what we wanted at any given moment.Beyond power its connectivity that he wants to shout about. This helped in the smooth flow of the end result by allowing him to move freely.Richman pointed out: I can work on my laptop and I can work on my iMac, and I can work at the post facility or I can work at Bens office, and as long as Im logged into my account, everything I do shows up everywhere.At one point he even showed up where Ben Stiller was staying and plugged his MacBook right into the TV so they could play with the edit there and then.Music and the score were also worked on at the same time as filming, meaning composer Shapiro would send music over and Richman would listen on his iPhone and AirPods Pro 2 wherever he was.The marching band footage organization took over a week with all the angles to pick from, with the potential for hundreds of ways to cut the scene.Those were definitely scenes where I was jotting down notes on my iPhone and then to get a different perspective Id work on my MacBook Pro, sketching ideas while sitting on my couch or in bed, before bringing those thoughts back to my iMac, Richman said.Editors Recommendations

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsGigabyte Aorus 15X $1,430 $1,899 24.7% offGigabyte Aorus 17 $1,399 $1,749 20% offIf youve been waiting for the perfect moment to get your first gaming laptop, Gigabyte and Amazon just gave you an awesome opportunity. As part of the Amazon Big Spring Sale, Gigabyte has slashed the prices of its Aorus gaming laptops. The Gigabyte Aorus 15X is almost 25% off, and the Aorus 17 is 20% off. These are solid gaming laptops, both equipped with RTX 4070 graphics cards, 16GB of RAM, and solid CPUs.Amazons Big Spring Sale lasts until March 31, so you dont have long to snag one of these deals. Lets check out the specs of both these gaming machines. $1,430 $1,899 24.7% off $1,399 $1,749 20% off$1,899 24.7% offGigabyteBetween the Aorus 15X and the 17, the 15X is the option for people who care more about power and capability than sheer size. The Aorus 15X only has a 15.6-inch, 2560 x 1440 screen compared to the 17s 17.3-inches. This might be perfect for you if you need your gaming rig to be portable or you prefer external monitors. Where the 15X shines is in its specs. It has the Intel Core i9-13980HX CPU, which in 2023 gave desktop CPUs a run for their money. It also comes with an RTX 4070 GPU and 16GB of RAM, which will let you play most modern AAA titles with good graphics settings.RelatedSince this is a gaming laptop, we cant neglect to mention the overall build. The Aorus 15X is a nice and slim gaming laptop; it has thin bezels and weighs under six pounds. It also has a backlit keyboard so you can game in low-light conditions.$1,749 20% offGigabyteThe Aorus 17 is the laptop to pick if you plan on gaming on the go. It has a 17.3-inch screen that runs at a resolution of 2560 x 1440, so you wont be squinting at a tiny display when its not plugged into a gaming monitor. The specs are similar to the Aorus 15X the 17 has an RTX 4070 GPU and 16GB of RAM. Where is differs is in the CPU: It has the Intel Core i7-13700H. This isnt as fast as the 15Xs i9, but its solid. In fact, back in 2023, the Intel Core i7-13700H actually outperformed the newer Core Ultra 7 155H. Youll be able to play modern games on nice settings with minimal lag.Like the 15X, the Aorus 17 has a solid construction. Its slim, has thin bezels, and weighs just over six pounds. It has a backlit keyboard for low light situations, and the machine as a whole has a sleek aesthetic.Editors Recommendations

Onward spread Measles quickly spreading in Kansas counties with alarmingly low vaccination Meanwhile, Texas kids reportedly getting liver damage from supplement touted by RFK Jr. Beth Mole Mar 26, 2025 4:29 pm | 2 LUBBOCK, TEXAS - MARCH 01: Priscilla Luna (L) and her 3-year-old daughter, Avery Dahl, read a book about immunizations at a vaccine clinic put on by Lubbock Public Health Department on March 1, 2025 in Lubbock, Texas. Credit: Getty | Jan Sonnenmair LUBBOCK, TEXAS - MARCH 01: Priscilla Luna (L) and her 3-year-old daughter, Avery Dahl, read a book about immunizations at a vaccine clinic put on by Lubbock Public Health Department on March 1, 2025 in Lubbock, Texas. Credit: Getty | Jan Sonnenmair Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreAn eruption of measles is spreading quickly in Kansas, with cases doubling in a week and spreading to three new counties, some with vaccination coverage among kindergartners at pitiful levels as low as 41 percent. Coverage of 95 percent or greater is thought to protect communities from onward spread of the extremely contagious virus.In an update Wednesday, March 26, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) reported 23 measles cases across six countiesup from 10 cases across three counties on March 21. The 23 people ill with the dangerous virus are mostly children, including six ages 0 to 4 years old, nine ages 5 to 10 years, three ages 11 to 13 years, three ages 14 to 17, and two adults between the ages of 25 and 44. Fortunately, none of the cases have been hospitalized so far, and there have been no deaths.Twenty of the 23 cases were unvaccinated. One case was "not age appropriately vaccinated," one was "age appropriately vaccinated," and the remaining case's vaccination status is pending.Children should get two doses of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, the first between the ages of 12 and 15 months and the second between the ages of 4 and 6, prior to starting kindergarten. Two doses are 97 percent effective against measles, offering life-long protection.The cases now span the counties of Grant, Gray, Haskell, Kiowa, Morton, and Stevens, all in the southwest corner of the state. Many of the counties have areas with extremely low vaccination. Haskell, which has reported 4 of the 23 cases, has two school districts, both with low vaccination coverage: Satanta with only 85 percent of kindergartners being up to date on their MMR vaccines in the 2023-2024 school year, and Sublette with just 41 percent. Likewise, Gray County includes school districts Cimarron-Ensign with 63 percent and Ingalls with 60 percent. Two other districts in the county had unreported vaccination rates.The cases in Kansas are likely part of the mushrooming outbreak that began in West Texas in late January. On March 13, Kansas reported a single measles case, the first the state had seen since 2018. The nine cases reported last week had ties to that original case.Spreading infections and misinformationOn Wednesday, KDHE Communications Director Jill Bronaugh told Ars Technica over email that the department has found a genetic link between the first Kansas case and the cases in West Texas, which has similarly spread swiftly in under-vaccinated communities and also spilled over to New Mexico and Oklahoma."While genetic sequencing of the first Kansas case reported is consistent with an epidemiological link to the Texas and New Mexico outbreaks, the source of exposure is still unknown," Bronaugh told Ars.Bronaugh added that KDHE, along with local health departments, are continuing to work to track down people who may have been exposed to measles in affected counties.In Texas, meanwhile, the latest outbreak count has hit 327 across 15 counties, mostly children and almost entirely unvaccinated. Forty cases have been hospitalized and one death has been reporteda 6-year-old unvaccinated girl who had no underlying health conditions.On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that as measles continues to spread, parents have continued to eschew vaccines and instead embraced "alternative" treatments, including vitamin A, which has been touted by anti-vaccine advocate and current US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Vitamin A accumulates in the body and can be toxic with large doses or extended use. Texas doctors told the Times that they've now treated a handful of unvaccinated children who had been given so much vitamin A that they had signs of liver damage."I had a patient that was only sick a couple of days, four or five days, but had been taking it for like three weeks," one doctor told the Times.In New Mexico, cases are up to 43, with two hospitalizations and one death in an unvaccinated adult who did not seek medical care. In Oklahoma, officials have identified nine cases, with no hospitalizations or deaths so far.Beth MoleSenior Health ReporterBeth MoleSenior Health Reporter Beth is Ars Technicas Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes. 2 Comments

Live Long and Orbit With Vulcans certification, Space Force is no longer solely reliant on SpaceX US Space Force to United Launch Alliance: "I have been and always shall be your friend." Eric Berger Mar 26, 2025 3:57 pm | 10 ULA's second Vulcan rocket lifted off October 4, 2024. Credit: United Launch Alliance ULA's second Vulcan rocket lifted off October 4, 2024. Credit: United Launch Alliance Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreThe US Space Force on Wednesday announced that it has certified United Launch Alliance's Vulcan rocket to conduct national security missions."Assured access to space is a core function of the Space Force and a critical element of national security," said Brig. Gen. Panzenhagen, program executive officer for Assured Access to Space, in a news release. "Vulcan certification adds launch capacity, resiliency, and flexibility needed by our nations most critical space-based systems."The formal announcement closes a yearslong process that has seen multiple delays in the development of the Vulcan rocket, as well as two anomalies in recent years that were a further setback to certification.The first of these, an explosion on a test stand in northern Alabama during the spring of 2023, delayed the first test flight of Vulcan by several months. Then, in October 2024, during the second test flight of the rocket, a nozzle on one of the Vulcan's two side-mounted boosters failed.A cumbersome processThis nozzle issue, more than five months ago, compounded the extensive paperwork needed to certify Vulcan for the US Department of Defense's most sensitive missions. The military has several options for companies to certify their rockets depending on the number of flights completed, which could be two, three, or more. The fewer the flights, the more paperwork and review that must be done. For Vulcan, this process entailed:52 certification criteriamore than 180 discrete tasks2 certification flight demonstrations60 payload interface requirement verifications18 subsystem design and test reviews114 hardware and software auditsThat sounds like a lot of work, but at least the military's rules and regulations are straightforward and simple to navigate, right? Anyway, the certification process is complete, elevating United Launch Alliance to fly national security missions alongside SpaceX with its fleet of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets.As for the booster anomaly issue, United Launch Alliance chief Tory Bruno recently explained that it was due to a manufacturing defect. "We have isolated the root cause and made appropriate corrective actions," he said, which were confirmed in a static-fire test of a motor at a Northrop test site in Utah in February. "So we are back continuing to fabricate hardware and, at least initially, screening for what that root cause was."Atlas up nextVulcan will not be the next rocket that the company launches, however. First up is one of the company's remaining Atlas 5 boosters, carrying Project Kuiper broadband satellites for Amazon. This launch could occur in April, although United Launch has not set a date. This will be followed by the first two Vulcan national security launches, USSF-106 and USSF-87. According to the Space Force, the first of these could occur during the coming "summer."Now that United Launch Alliance has completed the certification process, the next step is accelerating the launch cadence of the vehicle. Before this year, Bruno said the company aimed to launch two dozen rockets in 2025 (a mix of Atlases and Vulcans), but has since reduced that estimate to about a dozen. Even this number seems aspirational should Vulcan not fly its initial mission before this summer.Last year, a senior Air Force official expressed concern about the ability of United Launch Alliance to scale up its manufacturing capabilities and reach a high cadence of launches. Bruno and other company officials have said that it would be doable after the certification process is complete. Now, we're about to find out.Eric BergerSenior Space EditorEric BergerSenior Space Editor Eric Berger is the senior space editor at Ars Technica, covering everything from astronomy to private space to NASA policy, and author of two books: Liftoff, about the rise of SpaceX; and Reentry, on the development of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon. A certified meteorologist, Eric lives in Houston. 10 Comments

HealthGLP-1 drugs have revolutionised the treatment of obesity, but the very reason they are effective is also why it's vital to prioritise exercise when taking them 26 March 2025 Jon KrauseFor decades, conventional wisdom held that, to lose weight, you must eat less and move more. Of course, that is easier said than done, which is why drugs like Wegovy are so revolutionary. By suppressing appetite, they help tackle the first part of that equation, typically leading to dramatic weight loss. But what about the second? Do we still need to hit the gym if weight-loss drugs are causing the number on the scales to drop? And what impact do these drugs have on our ability to exercise?What is becoming clear is that exercise may be even more crucial for people who are on these medications than it is for those who arent. The ability of semaglutide to induce rapid weight loss (see How they work, below) also leads to notable declines in muscle mass. For instance, a 2021 study of 95 people who were overweight or had obesity and were taking semaglutide found that lean body mass decreased by almost 10 per cent, on average, after 68 weeks.This article is part of a special series investigating the GLP-1 agonist boom. Read more here.Lean body mass encompasses body tissues like muscle and bone. So, these results suggest that both deteriorate when taking weight-loss drugs, says Signe Srensen Torekov at the University of Copenhagen. Because these drugs lead people to consume fewer calories, the body must break down fat, muscle and even bone for nutrients.Our understanding is that up to about 40 per cent of the overall weight loss that is seen from semaglutide is thought to be potentially from the loss of muscle mass, says

HealthDrugs like Ozempic and Wegovy have the power to block the forces driving obesity, but the knock-on societal effects may not necessarily be so positive 26 March 2025 Jon KrauseOprah WinfreysTV special Shame, Blame and the Weight Loss Revolution has been streamed more than 4 million times since it aired in March 2024. In it, the talk show host described Ozempic as being the relief and support and freedom that some people have been waiting for their whole lives.This might have been easy for a billionaire like Winfrey to say. Weight-loss drugs can be game-changing for people who are obese, but getting hold of them is far from a level playing field, with knock-on effects for the obesity levels of the rich versus the poor. But this inequality is just one of many societal issues on the horizon. Ultra-slim beauty norms may be re-emerging, and some analysts predict changes to our collective appetite for junk food. In the era of Wegovy, we could also see an increase in the stigma around obesity that exists in some countries.This article is part of a special series investigating the GLP-1 agonist boom. Read more here.In the UK, only those with a body mass index of more than 35 (within the obesity range) and at least one weight-related health complication are generally eligible to receive Wegovy or Mounjaro on the National Health Service (see How they work, below). In the US, the use of these drugs for weight loss often isnt covered by insurers, which means many people are paying out of pocket. With costs of roughly $1000 a month in the US and between 150 and 200 a month in the UK, better-off people will have access and poor people wont, says Margaret Steele at

Jenna Ortega as Wednesday Addams in "Wednesday." Netflix Updated 2025-03-26T20:18:58Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? Season two of Netflix's hit show "Wednesday" is in the works and set for release sometime in 2025.Star Jenna Ortega said that season two will de-emphasize her character's love triangle.The season two cast includes Lady Gaga, Steve Buscemi, and Thandiwe Newton.Netflix's teen series "Wednesday" is returning for more episodes after a wildly successful, viral first season.The show, which stars Jenna Ortega as the iconic character Wednesday Addams, was renewed for season two in January 2023.Here's what we know about the upcoming season so far.Season 2 will lean more into horror and focus less on Wednesday's love life Hunter Doohan as Tyler Galpin and Jenna Ortega as Wednesday Addams in season one, episode seven of "Wednesday." Vlad Cioplea/Netflix Amid investigating mysteries on season one, Wednesday also found herself in a love triangle with two of her peers at Nevermore Academy: Xavier Thorpe (Percy Hynes White), the brooding psychic artist, and Tyler Galpin (Hunter Doohan), a barista at Weathervane Cafe and the son of the town's sheriff.Ortega previously voiced her dissatisfaction with the love triangle during anepisode of the podcast "Armchair Expert With Dax Shepard," saying that it made "no sense" for a character like Wednesday.During an appearance on NBC's "Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon" in March 2023, Ortega again downplayed her character's romances. "I think we want to up the horror aspect of it a little bit and then get Wednesday out of her romantic situation and just let her be her own individual and fight her own crime."She shared similar comments during a conversation with Elle Fanning for Variety's Actors on Actors, published in June 2023."We want to lean into the horror aspect of the show a little bit more," Ortega said, "because it is so lighthearted, and a show like this with vampires and werewolves and superpowers, you don't want to take yourself too seriously.""We're ditching any romantic love interest for Wednesday, which is really great," she added.Ortega reiterated that season two will be more horror-focused while speaking to E! News in January 2024 at the postponed 2023 Emmys."There are some really, really good one-liners," Ortega said, also teasing more action. "I think each episode will probably feel a little bit like a movie, which is nice."Ortega elaborated on the difference between seasons one and two in an interview with Vanity Fair published in February 2024."In the first season we had episodes that really stood out visually, like the dance episode was a really big one for people, and that setting was very particular and it felt like 'Prom Night,' a little bit, or 'Carrie,'" she said."Every episode [of season two] that I've read so far is like that," Ortega continued. "It just stands out on its own as a very memorable scene or bit or setting, which I think is what I'm most excited for, because to pull that off for eight episodes is, I think, really incredible and really lucky."Ortega also recently told Collider that season two will feature "a whole episode based off of slashers, and we make a lot of horror references."Ortega will serve as a producer on season 2 Ortega and Thing in Netflix's "Wednesday." Netflix Ortega famously (and controversially) changed script lines and vetoed a flash mob scene in season one of the series.She'll have even more of a saying in decision-making for season two."When I went into 'Wednesday' I really put my foot down and made it clear that everything that I had to say mattered and was heard," Ortega said in a 2023 comedy actress roundtable interview for The Hollywood Reporter. "And as the show went on, we all got a better feel for one another and it's become a really collaborative experience, and I feel really lucky to be able to be in the room early next season and be talking about scripts and giving notes."Ortega also told Fanning that adding a producer credit to her work on "Wednesday" was a "natural progression" because she's a "hands-on" person."With a character like Wednesday, who is so beloved and such a legend, I just really didn't want to get her wrong," she said. "So I try to have as many conversations as possible."Ortega continued: "In preparation for a second season, we wanted to get ahead of the curve and make sure that we could start the conversations earlier. And I'm just so curious. I want to see the outfits, new characters that are coming in, scripts, and they were gracious enough to let me put the producer hat on."Another Addams family member is expected to appear Catherine Zeta-Jones as Morticia Adams and Luis Guzman as Gomez Addams in season one, episode one of "Wednesday." Courtesy of Netflix Season one included appearances from Gomez (Luis Guzmn), Morticia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), Pugsley (Isaac Ordonez), and Uncle Fester (Fred Armisen). All three characters will return in season two.During Netflix's "Tudum: A Global Fan Event" in June 2023, cast members Ortega, Doohan, Emma Myers (Enid Sinclair), and Joy Sunday (Bianca Barclay) confirmed that someone else from the kooky family will also show up but it's unclear who.Steve Buscemi and Thandiwe Newton are joining the cast Steve Buscemi, left, in February 2024 and Thandiwe Newton, right, in March 2022. Evan Agostini/Invision/AP; Chris Pizzello/AP Variety reported that the "Miracle Workers" star and "Westworld" actor will both appear in season two of "Wednesday." Buscemi and Newton have since been added to the official cast lineup.Newton's role is unclear, but Buscemi will reportedly play the new principal of Nevermore Academy after previous headmistress Larissa Weems (Gwendoline Christie) was killed off during season one.Lady Gaga has a top-secret role in season 2 Lady Gaga at the iHeartRadio Music Awards in March 2025. Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for iHeartRadio In November 2024, Variety reported that Lady Gaga would have a cameo in season two of "Wednesday." Sources told the publication that the production team ideally wanted Gaga to have a bigger role in the season, but it didn't work out.In various interviews, Ortega has raved about her brief time working with Lady Gaga."She's so unbelievably cool. How she still does it, I don't know," Ortega told Film Updates. "Working with her, we couldn't believe that she actually showed up, even on the day. I think it was kind of a surreal feeling, but she is such a sweetheart."Ortega has remained tight-lipped about who the "Abracadabra" singer will be playing in "Wednesday," but she told Entertainment Tonight, "I don't think she's what people expect her to be."Season 2 of 'Wednesday' will be released in 2025 Ortega in season two of "Wednesday." Bernard Walsh/Netflix During an appearance on "The Late Show Starring Stephen Colbert," Ortega that she spent seven or eight months filming season two in Ireland.Production kicked off in early May 2024 and Netflix unveiled the cast in a video shared that month. In September 2024, fans got a behind-the-scenes look at season two as part of Netflix's Geeked Week.In December, Netflix announced that filming wrapped on season two.The new season will debut sometime in 2025, but it's unclear when exactly.This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Wall Street is concerned that Trump's plan to levy tariffs could unleash stagflation in the economy. Michael M. Santiago /Getty, Anna Kim/Getty, Tyler Le/BI 2025-03-26T20:18:14Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? Stagflation fears are rising on the outlook for lower growth and stubbornly high inflation. However, concerns are politically driven and not supported by data, one research firm says. Oil prices remain stable, and the labor market has shown no significant increase in layoffs.Fears of stagflation hitting the US economy are rising.The dire economic scenario, in which inflation rises while economic growth deteriorates and unemployment surges, would be a flashback to the 1970s for America. That time period proved to be a brutal lost decade for the US stock market.But Sonu Varghese, global macro strategist at Carson Group, sees little risk of stagflation occurring anytime soon. "Folks, we are far from stagflation," Varghese said in a recent note.Inflation concerns are overblownConsumer sentiment has soured since President Donald Trump's inauguration in January, partly because of concerns that tariffs will drive a rebound in inflation.However, Varghese says that higher inflation expectations among consumers are more of an expression of political dissatisfaction than a view of actual economic conditions. "The increase in inflation expectations would typically be very concerning for the Federal Reserve, but other surveys don't show a similar surge," Varghese said, pointing to the New York Federal Reserve's consumer survey and the Atlanta Fed's business expectations survey. In addition, wage growth, a key inflationary pressure, is hovering near pre-pandemic trends that were consistent with low inflation.Annualized wages rose 3.6% for all private workers over the past three months, compared to the pre-pandemic trend of 3.1%."Forget stagflationary levels of inflation, this pace of wage growth is consistent with 2% inflation," Varghese said in a recent note.Oil isn't moving higherOne of the big shocks of the stagflation crisis in the 1970s was surging oil prices."Energy price shocks tend to drive upside inflation shocks and right now, we don't have anything close to that," Varghese said.That's not happening now.At just below $70 a barrel, US crude oil is trading at levels last seen in 2018. With US oil production near record levels and OPEC scaling back its production cuts, there's no sign that oil prices will surge in the near future.The labor market is holding upWhile there's been a slowdown in hiring, partially driven by the uncertainty coming out of Washington, D.C., the unemployment rate is essentially at a standstill at about 4.1%, which is historically low."Overall layoffs are running lower than where they were before the pandemic, and even if you normalize for the large workforce we have now, the 'layoff rate' is 1%, below the 1.2-1.3% range we saw prior to the pandemic," Varghese explained.While the data can always change, and DOGE is fueling fears of future labor-market weakness, there are no signs that stagflation is on the horizon, Varghese said.

The Supreme Court spent Wednesday morning giving very serious consideration to a case that no one should take seriously. FCC v. Consumers Research asks the justices to revive a long-dead legal doctrine known as nondelegation, which places strict limits on Congresss authority to delegate power to federal agencies, and essentially move that power over to the judiciary. The problem with this legal doctrine, besides the difficulty it would create for agencies trying to carry out their mandates, is that it appears nowhere in the Constitution, and so it is impossible to come up with principled rules to guide when judges should strike down a law empowering an agency.The Consumers Research case is also a strange vehicle to revive the Nondelegation Doctrine because the particular statute at issue in this case clearly should be upheld under the Courts current nondelegation precedents. In fact, even if the Court were to abandon those precedents in favor of an alternative, more restrictive nondelegation framework that was proposed by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a 2019 dissent, the federal program at issue in Consumers Research should still be upheld. While all six of the Courts Republicans showed sympathy with the broader project of expanding the Courts power to overrule federal agencies, only three of them appeared likely to strike down the law that is actually at issue in Consumers Research. The Courts opinion in this case could still have considerable long-term implications if it embraces Gorsuchs proposed framework or otherwise expands the judiciarys authority. But the statutory scheme that is before the justices right now seems likely to survive.So what is at issue in this case?Consumers Research involves a program known as the Universal Service Fund, which provides telephone and internet service to rural areas and other regions that are difficult to wire. In the absence of this program, these services would be prohibitively expensive in many poorer or more sparsely populated regions of the country.The Universal Service Fund effectively taxes telephone and internet service providers and uses that money to pay for service in these expensive areas. As a practical matter, that means service providers pass the cost of this tax onto their urban and suburban customers so people in cities wind up subsidizing communications for people in rural communities.One challenge Congress faced when it created this program is that the amount of money the Fund must raise to achieve universal service varies from year to year. So, rather than setting a precise annual tax rate for service providers, Congress tasked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with determining how much money the fund should collect.The federal statute at issue in Consumers Research provides extraordinarily detailed instructions regarding how to make this determination. It only permits the FCC to subsidize services that are used by a substantial majority of residential customers, it instructs the FCC to raise enough money so that rural customers pay reasonably comparable rates to other customers, and it lays out numerous other principles which the FCC must follow. Thus, the FCC should look at which communications services the overwhelming majority of Americans already have, and it should raise enough funds to ensure that rural customers pay similar rates to urban customers, without raising so much money that rural rates are significantly cheaper.Under the Courts current precedents, Congress must only provide an agency with an intelligible principle that it must follow when it exercises its authority, and theres no serious argument that this statute fails this test. Gorsuchs dissent in Gundy v. United States (2019), which also concerned nondelegation, proposed a new and much vaguer rule Congress must put forth standards sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain whether Congresss guidance has been followed but even under Gorsuchs standard it is tough to make an argument that the Universal Service Fund is illegal.Only three of the justices seemed to believe that the Universal Service Fund is illegalPerhaps for this reason, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested a completely novel way to invalidate the Fund. Thomas suggested that the nondelegation doctrine should apply with more force in taxing cases, limiting Congresss power to determine how much a federal agency may raise.One problem with Thomass approach, however, is that the Court held in Skinner v. Mid-America Pipeline Co. (1989) that the Constitution does not require the application of a different and stricter nondelegation doctrine in cases where Congress delegates discretionary authority to the Executive under its taxing power. So reaching Thomass preferred result would require the Court to overrule Skinner.Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, followed his typical practice of peppering the side that counters Republican orthodoxy with a series of unrelated questions, in the hopes that they would stumble over one of them and he was joined in this tactic by Justice Gorsuch. Over the course of the argument, Alito and Gorsuch complained that the FCC created a corporation to advise it on how to set rates, that the taxing power can potentially be used to destroy companies, and that the FCC sought input from the same companies that they are taxing. At one point, Gorsuch went off on a strange tangent about how the governments decision to break up Ma Bell in 1982 created other telephone monopolies. None of these arguments are relevant to whether the Universal Service Fund is constitutional, at least under existing law.Meanwhile, the Courts other Republicans asked some skeptical questions of the two lawyers who defended the Fund, but they ultimately seemed to conclude that this particular nondelegation challenge is unworkable. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, did ask acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris how to distinguish between a tax and a fee, a question that suggests that Kavanaugh has some sympathy for Thomass position, but ultimately seemed satisfied with Harriss response that this distinction is unbelievably murky in practice.Similarly, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Harris to distinguish this law from other hypothetical laws that would raise more serious nondelegation questions, such as a law that merely instructed the IRS to raise enough money to provide food for the needy, she too seemed skeptical that this particular law is unconstitutional.Notably, Barrett threw cold water on Thomass suggestion that there should be a special rule for taxes. Congress, she noted, could potentially solve the problem by imposing a cap as high as $3 trillion on the Funds ability to raise money, but that would be an empty requirement that amounts to nothing more than throwing out a number for the sake of throwing out a number.It appears, in other words, that the Republican justices general desire to expand the nondelegation doctrine a desire that five of them have expressed openly at one point or another is likely to run aground in the Consumers Research case because this case is such a poor vehicle to expand nondelegation. Congresss instructions to the FCC were as detailed as they could possibly be, unless the Supreme Court wants to strip Congress of its ability to, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, provide a service, however much it costs.The Court could still use this case to seize powerIts notable that, while even the Trump administration agrees that the Universal Service Fund is legal, the federal government switched its position in this case after Trump took office. The governments initial brief, which was filed in the final two weeks of the Biden administration, argues that the Court should apply existing law and uphold the Fund. By contrast, its reply brief (a brief responding to the other sides arguments) treats Gorsuchs Gundy dissent as if it were the law. The reply brief was filed after Trump took office.Even if the Court upholds the Universal Service Fund, which seems likely, the Republican justices could still use this case to abandon the longstanding intelligible principle framework, which gives Congress a great deal of authority to delegate power to agencies, and replace it with Gorsuchs sufficiently definite and precise framework. Because that later framework is so vague, a decision embracing Gorsuchs approach would give judges far more discretion to strike down federal programs that they do not like.So, even if the Court rejects the exceedingly weak attack on the law at issue in this case, it could still use this case to achieve a significant power grab. Gorsuchs framework would transfer a great deal of power from federal agencies, which are controlled by an elected president, and toward a judiciary dominated by Republicans who serve for life. That would mean that the American people would have far less control over how they are governed.See More: