Why it matters: In all the focus on the big processors and the "AI race," we often overlook the far less glamorous business of actually building compute systems. We have explored different parts of that (and here), but there is an underlying assumption built into all these conversations the role of Taiwanese companies upon which the whole ecosystem rests. What will the shift to AI compute mean for the hundreds of companies that make up this critical ecosystem? We were reminded of this during our recent visit to Mobile World Congress when we had the chance to visit the Taiwan ITRI Booth.ITRI is a trade organization representing their electronics companies. The booth had a dozen vendors offering various pieces of computing gear. This includes companies like iBase and Nexcom, which make specialty server gear (security and edge), Asrock, which makes motherboards, and Aerotek, which produces all sorts of radio equipment (Wi-Fi, mmWave, etc). These are small companies without the cachet of TSMC or MediaTek, but collectively they serve an important function in the market.Editor's Note:Guest author Jonathan Goldberg is the founder of D2D Advisory, a multi-functional consulting firm. Jonathan has developed growth strategies and alliances for companies in the mobile, networking, gaming, and software industries.The trouble here is that all of these companies were built on top of Intel. Look through their catalogs all those specialty servers and motherboards are built on Intel CPUs, often three years (or more) old.Prior to TSMC's rise as the flagship of Taiwan's electronics complex, Taiwanese companies formed the bedrock of modern compute, filling every available niche and spot in the supply chain. Over the years, many (but not all) of these companies moved their manufacturing base to the Mainland, but core R&D and headquarters remained in Taiwan. // Related StoriesNow all those companies face two major transitions. The first is they must weather Intel's turmoil. No matter what Intel's new CEO does with their fabs, the company is almost certain to face a major headcount reduction and a corresponding narrowing of their scope of business. This will very likely lead to a reduction in support for this ecosystem.Companies that today bridge the gap in providing support to the long tail of enterprise electronics will likely find it much harder to maintain previous levels of support.Their second major transition is, of course, a big part of the cause of Intel's troubles the shift to AI compute and the rise of Nvidia.Nvidia has become the dominant force in data center compute applications, and as AI percolates into the edge, that long tail will need to source specialty compute hardware from someone. But it is not clear the traditional vendors in Taiwan will be able to support that.At MWC, the one refuge from the sea of AI-washing marketing was the ITRI booth, where almost no one talked about AI (at least not in explicit marketing materials).Nvidia is now in the process of building up the electronics ecosystem that provided so much support to Intel. Nvidia's GTC, and the upcoming Computex, are very much about Nvidia's efforts to find, train, and support partners who can fulfill their ever-growing book of business. That being said, it is unlikely that Nvidia will build up its partner network in the same way that Intel did.The world has changed a lot, and companies which today build semi-custom server boxes for traditional compute may not be the ones to build semi-custom, long-tail server boxes for AI. In our tour, we saw almost no support for AMD, let alone Nvidia. This complex is built on x86 and general compute the AI complex is going to look different.Nvidia's GTC, and the upcoming Computex, are very much about Nvidia's efforts to find, train, and support partners who can fulfill their ever-growing book of business.In some senses, we could see some of these companies just altering their designs a motherboard for a CPU is built with largely the same materials as a GPU board. But so much of this business extends beyond the basics of metal bending.Companies which have been building Intel-based servers for decades do not have the in-house experience with Nvidia new firmware, new pin compatibility schemes, new power and cooling requirements, etc. This sort of soft expertise helped these companies differentiate themselves from the pure manufacturing-focused box builders in the Mainland.With much of that expertise now rendered less critical to customers, whatever will replace it is very much green field a jump ball where the traditional vendors have no clear advantage.This does not mean that disaster is imminent, but it seems likely that a big transformation is starting soon. Intel's strength in this corner of the industry, not only with the small specialty makers but their larger peers (and often parent companies), has long served as a major competitive advantage that tripped up other aspiring CPU vendors.Intel's ability to hold on to this complex will play a large role in determining its future. If Intel can remain the preferred silicon partner here, this segment will provide an important source of demand on which Intel can rebuild. But it is not clear how well these companies can navigate the changes coming in the next few years.

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsWatch the Nintendo Switch 2 DirectNintendo Switch 2 Direct live blogThe Nintendo Switch 2 Direct reveal event is happening now, and were bringing you all the Switch 2 news as it happens.Were hoping to find out the Nintendo Switch 2 release date, price and specs in todays Nintendo Direct stream plus well probably get our first proper look at the launch titles destined for the console.The stream is set to last around an hour, which could result in a fast-paced showing where Nintendo whips through a lot of information quickly. Were right here with you though, with expert analysis and insight into everything Nintendo shows and doesnt show.RelatedLiveLast updated April 02, 2025 5:40 AMThe liveblog has ended.No liveblog updates yet.Editors Recommendations

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsWhat is OLED burn-in?How does MSIs new update help prevent burn-in?If you own one of the best OLED monitors, you know that the contrasts and colors are second to (almost) none. But OLED monitors have one big flaw: Burn-in issues. Monitor manufacturers are aware of this, and most of them come up with ways to try to avert disaster. MSIs already had one in place, but with the latest update, protecting your monitor should be less of a nuisance.Burn-in refers to a permanent discoloration or ghosting that can happen on some OLED screens when something remains displayed for too long. This means things like logos, HUDs, or news tickers; basically all kinds of things that stay on the screen for long periods. Using your monitor at the highest possible brightness also contributes to burn-in, as both unvaried content and high brightness may cause uneven wear of the organic compounds that emit light in OLED monitors.Recommended VideosFortunately, modern OLEDs do a better job of avoiding burn-in, but when it happens, its definitely not nice to deal with. You might see a faint, ghostly shadow of a static image that doesnt go away regardless of the content that youre viewing. When burn-in hits, its usually permanent, which is why manufacturers like MSI try to prevent it from happening in the first place. No one wants their gaming monitor to have permanent ghosting.Jacob Roach / Digital TrendsMSI, like most other OLED monitor makers, already has a solution that helps it keep burn-in at bay its called MSI OLED Care, and its a suite of tools made to protect OLED screens. MSI monitors typically come with a three-year warranty, but using these panel-protecting technologies is a must for that warranty to hold up.One of the main things included in OLED Care 2.0 is Panel Protect, which essentially refreshes every pixel in order to maintain uniformity and prevent ghosting. Unfortunately, this can be a bother if youre right in the middle of a gaming session, as previously, these refreshes would take place once every 16 hours. Sure, most of us dont spend 16 hours at our PCs (right?), but a poorly timed refresh could still happen.MSI says that its listening to user feedback here and adjusting the refresh time to once every 24 hours. As shared by VideoCardz, if your monitor is on for more than 4 hours, the system will remind you that its time to do a Pixel Refresh. You can skip it several times, but if you do it too often, the refresh will happen whether you want it or not. This time, itll take 24 hours instead of 16 for it to happen, though, which is an improvement if you tend to leave your PC on for a long time.The only way to get this update is to download the new firmware, so if this doesnt bother you and the 16-hour refreshes work just fine, you can skip it. But for power users, those extra eight hours of peace might be pretty great. MSI has also launched a new update to the Claw handheld today, and much like this one, its based on user feedback.Editors Recommendations

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorApril 2, 20255 Min ReadYuri Arcurs via Alamy Stock PhotoWhen it comes to business and technology tasks, many IT leaders believe they can do anything. While this may be generally true, it also opens a potential trapdoor. Actually, no leader can work effectively and efficiently without delegating specific tasks to qualified team members. Over time, failing to offload routine tasks to subordinates will prevent the leader from focusing on other, critical priorities.Even when an IT leader recognizes the need to delegate tasks, failing to provide sufficient guidance can lead to delays, warns Pavlo Tkhir, CTO at digital transformation company Euristiq, in an email interview. This includes failing to set deadlines, task priorities, and project goals. "It causes confusion, which slows down the process and kills motivation," he explains.Failure to CommunicateClear communication is essential, says John Kreul, CIO at insurance firm Jewelers Mutual. He advises IT leaders to spend time with team members in small group meetings, one-on-ones, and town halls to build trust and confidence. "The goal is to create an environment where the leader can listen to feedback, take and answer questions, and, ultimately, drive clarity and transparency," Kreul states in an online interview.If goals aren't effectively communicated, team members will be prone to making incorrect assumptions. This can lead to trouble when the leader realizes that project outcomes aren't aligning with broader enterprise objectives. "It obviously causes delays, because the team will need more time to figure out what they need to do," Tkhir says. "On top of that, it can really undermine your authority as a leader and damage overall team dynamics due to lost trust."Related:Customer-CentricityA major mistake many IT leaders make is failing to develop an Agile customer-centricity plan, whether it's for internal or external customers. "It's the starting point and the North Star when there's a question about direction or next steps," says executive team coach Keith Ferrazzi, via email.Theres a difference between what's urgent, whats important, and what's both, Ferrazzi says. "Being able to focus attention on the most pressing and high-value tasks that make up a sprint -- a practice of breaking-down complex projects into smaller, simpler sprints of work -- is essential." This is the key attribute in the most successful Agile teams.Intelligent DelegationThe ultimate goal should be seeing team members self-assign tasks, identify potential roadblocks, and allocate support, Ferrazzi says. He also believes that IT leaders should allow their teams to hold fellow team members accountable. "In this way, the team adopts 'teamship,' with a contract of peer-to-peer accountability."Related:Without driving individual and team connectivity, and getting close to what's happening, it's impossible to understand how the team really feels, Kreul says. Actively listen, assess how well team members understand current priorities, provide feedback and, finally, self-reflect on your performance as a leader, he advises. "The ultimate harm is low employee engagement, which leads to poor customer experiences, inconsistent execution, and regrettable turnover."All AboardLogical task delegation is essential. "You should provide context on tasks by outlining the 'why' of it and articulating main requirements and goals," Tkhir says. "You need to set clear deadlines and expectations, including key metrics." It's also important to create a check-ins schedule throughout the task completion period, allowing team members to know when they will have an opportunity to have their questions addressed.A leader should set guardrails yet allow the team to own their tasks and drive execution. "Empowerment will drive ownership and foster a curiosity to learn versus being told what to do," Kreul says. "Task ownership will allow personal and team growth through learning by doing -- critical experiences for growth."Related:An effective way to ensure successful task delegation is to encourage feedback and rapidly act on necessary changes or improvements. A post-task analysis can also help team members feel engaged. "Run a review session, where the team can share their perspectives on how the project went in terms of task delegation and completion," Tkhir says. "This is also a good way to facilitate open communication within your team or company."Ferrazzi says that IT leaders shouldn't micromanage Agile teams, but ask strategic and reflective questions at review points, such as: What did we achieve in the last two weeks? Where did we struggle and why? What will we achieve in the next two weeks?Parting ThoughtsLet go of the perceived need to control -- trusting your people is often hard, but it will lead to engaged and empowered teams, Kreul says. "Recognize and put your people first," he advises. "Recognition reinforces the value of your teams work and motivates future contributions."About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Vendor relationships have been changing over the years, with more vendor organizations becoming consultative in nature. For decades companies have been adding a service arm to expand their share of wallet, a KPI that doesnt necessarily benefit customers. The ultimate test of a vendors value is the business value realized as the result of the partnership.Vendor relationships are more important than ever before, says AJ Thompson, chief commercial officer at IT consultancy any Northdoor. With technology solutions now so complex and constantly changing, he says you can't underestimate how important solid relationships between organizations and vendors have become. This is true in several ways. Tech is getting more complicated by the day, so vendors who really know their stuff are worth their weight in gold. They share knowledge and provide the support you just can't get elsewhere.One of the big benefits of a strong vendor relationship is that enterprises get early access to new technologies and features, which helps chief information officers stay current. Its also important to have trustworthy vendors that maintain decent security and compliance amid increasingly complex regulatory landscapes.When youve found good relationships, you end up with solutions that actually fit your needs and more wiggle room during implementation, says Thompson. Plus, when things go wrong -- and they always do -- problems get sorted much faster when you're on good terms.Related:Trust is the necessary foundation, which is built through open communication, solid performance, relevant experience, and proper security credentials and practices. [P]eople buy from people they trust, no matter how digital everything becomes, says Thompson. That human connection remains crucial, especially in tech where you're often making huge investments in mission-critical systems.For example, when Northdoor was implementing a complex solution for a client with an extremely tight deadline and hit a snag, its primary vendor's account manager brought in the senior engineering team within hours to resolve the issue.[That account manager] knew our business well enough to understand the stakes and trusted us when we emphasized the urgency, says Thompson. That kind of responsiveness simply doesn't happen with transactional vendor relationships. In fact, the client later mentioned that watching how our vendor partner responded during that crisis gave them more confidence in our overall solution than any sales presentation could have.Related:AJ Thompson, NorthdoorThats why Thompson invests significant time in regular face-to-face meetings with Northdoors key vendors discussing products and roadmaps and the people behind them.Vendors who don't hide their limitations and are upfront about their capabilities tend to earn trust quickly. Meeting SLAs consistently matters enormously, says Thompson.Those who [understand] the specific challenges of your industry are gold dust, particularly in IT and cybersecurity where proper security practices and the right certifications make all the difference to confidence levels.Ashish Malhotra, president at management advisory firm Ampalyst Advisors, says selecting a vendor and executing a professional services agreement is relatively straightforward, but getting it wrong is prohibitively expensive.In todays dynamic technology landscape, vendor selection is more critical than ever, says Malhotra. As companies increasingly favor a buy over build approach, choosing the right vendors becomes paramount.Vendors can provide significant value in several ways, such as providing access to global talent and ecosystems, having the flexibility to scale resources up or down as needed, and shifting human capital from fixed to variable costs.Related:Vendors can also help their customers address in-house skills gaps and reduce managerial overhead costs. Importantly, customers can benefit from the industry expertise gained from multiple client engagements and innovative problem-solving approaches while ensuring adherence to proven methodologies and upskilling internal staff in emerging technologies. However, most important of all is trust.Trust is fundamental in partnerships, but in customer-vendor relationships, it must be paired with verification. Third-party governance is a critical function that should remain independent of the outsourcing arrangement, says Malhotra. Yet, many organizations make the mistake of allowing vendors to self-govern through dashboards, report cards, and operational meetings leading to weakened oversight.An executive-level technology governance framework helps ensure effective vendor oversight. According to Malhotra, it should consist of five key components, including business relationship management, enterprise technology investment, transformation governance, value capture and having the right culture and change management in place.Beneath the technology governance framework is active vendor governance, which institutionalizes oversight across ten critical areas including performance management, financial management, relationship management, risk management, and issues and escalations. Other considerations include work order management, resource management, contract and compliance, having a balanced scorecard across vendors and principled spend and innovation.Vendors that excel in these areas build greater trust, says Malhotra. Trust is not an abstract concept -- it is measurable through quantifiable performance indicators.Igor Epshteyn, president and CEO at digital product engineering company Coherent Solutions, believes as AI, cybersecurity, and compliance requirements are growing more complex, cooperating with a trusted vendor means having a partner who can provide up-to-date solutions.For businesses cooperating with IT vendors, it is crucial to choose digital engineering partners who have a proven track record and recommendations and, importantly, can guarantee strong cybersecurity measures, says Epshteyn.The Biggest Mistakes Vendors MakeOne of the biggest mistake vendors make is failing to drive tangible value for customers. Instead, the relationship is more transactional in nature, with the goal of upselling and cross selling products or solutions regardless of how the implementation will likely playout in the long term.Over-promising and under-delivering, poor communication, being stuck in their ways or vanishing after the sale absolutely kill trust and damage relationships beyond repair, says Northdoors Thompson. Vendors who refuse to adapt to changing needs are a write-off, and those who focus too much on closing deals rather than providing ongoing support won't keep clients for long.Ampalysts Mahotra says one of the biggest mistakes vendors make is bundling their services into rigid, all-inclusive packages that customers cannot easily modify. This includes offering a 2% innovation credit that customers do not know how to utilize, embedding proprietary portals and tools that cannot be decoupled if the customer terminates the contract and structuring contracts that lock customers in rather than fostering loyalty through performance.Ashish Malhotra, Ampalyst AdvisorsWhile [bundled services] are marketed as value-adds, they often function as exit constraints. As customers mature in their procurement strategies, they prefer vendors who win future business through high net promoter scores and strong performance -- not those who rely on contractual entrapment, says Malhotra. He says that while customers must ensure vendors are not earning excessive margins, sustainable partnerships require vendors to maintain healthy profitability. A well-structured engagement should be mutually beneficial rather than a race to the lowest cost.Coherent Solutions Epshteyn says missteps in communication, unresponsiveness, and overpromising are quite common.Clients should receive regular feedback, and their issues should be addressed as soon as possible by a dedicated account manager, says Epshteyn. Vendors who aim to build long-term and trustworthy partnerships should make sure they deliver on their promises, set clear deadlines, and are transparent about challenges and changes.How CIOs Should Approach Vendor RelationshipsNorthdoors Thompson says CIOs should do their homework on both a vendors technical capabilities and how they treat their customers.Set clear expectations and measurable KPIs from day one so everyone's on the same page. Schedule regular reviews to keep things on track and nip problems in the bud, says Thompson. Try to create genuine partnerships rather than just transactions. Where appropriate, get vendors involved in strategic discussions [because] it leads to much better outcomes. And finally, put real time and effort into nurturing key vendor relationships. Theyre strategic assets that pay off tremendously.Ampalysts Malhotra says vendor selection should involve both threshold and comparative criteria. The threshold criteria are binary conditions that vendors must meet to be considered. Missing any of them should preclude a vendor from further evaluation. These criteria may involve environmental factors like political and social stability where the vendor operates, legal protections including robust regulatory frameworks and IP security, and company-specific requirements such as minimum revenue size, relevant domain expertise, compliance with industry regulations and talent availability.Once vendors meet the threshold criteria, they should be assessed using a ratings-based approach that considers the infrastructure and technology ecosystem, depth of talent and expertise, cost structure, and financial viability. Other important considerations include the labor pool size, literacy rates, and access to educational institutions as well as language and communication proficiency.Vendor selection is just the first step, says Malhotra. Managing these relationships is the companys responsibility and cannot be outsourced. This is where technology governance and third-party governance become essential in sustaining long-term, value-driven partnerships.As the tech landscape continues to evolve, strong vendor relationships become a critical differentiator.[Strong vendor relationships] not only help in navigating complex technological challenges but also drive innovation and create strategic value, saysThompson. By focusing on transparency, performance, and mutual growth, organizations can cultivate vendor relationships that significantly contribute to their success in the digital era."

AA Flight 167 was operated by a Boeing 787-9. JanValls/Urbanandsport /NurPhoto via Getty Images 2025-04-02T12:24:10Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? An American Airlines flight to Tokyo turned back to the US in a 12-hour journey.The Boeing 787 U-turned over the Pacific Ocean due to a "maintenance issue."It's one of the longest flight diversions this year.American Airlines passengers spent more than half a day on a plane only to end up in Texas instead of Tokyo.Monday's Flight 167 took off from New York's JFK Airport about 11 a.m. ET.Seven hours into the journey, the Boeing 787 U-turned over the Pacific Ocean about 900 miles off the western Canadian coastline, per data from Flightradar24.It then traveled for another five hours, crossing half the US to land at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport shortly after 10 p.m. local time.The roughly 12-hour trip was only about an hour shy of the average flight time from New York to Tokyo.One Reddit user who said they were on the flight said there was no meal service on board, "so we've gone 14 hours with only dried snap peas as a snack."An airline spokesperson told Business Insider the flight was diverted due to "a maintenance issue.""We never want to disrupt our customers' travel plans, and we are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused," they added.Passengers were put up in hotels overnight before the flight departed again the following day.While spending hours on a diverted flight can be frustrating for passengers, it's typically an easier alternative for the airline than landing at the closest airport.For example, the flight went past Seattle and Denver but Dallas is American's main hub. Landing there likely made it easier to reroute passengers, find new crew, and repair any issues with the plane.Diverted flights can also be costly for airlines, with knock-on effects on their schedules. Data from Flightradar24 shows a return flight from Tokyo to New York was canceled on Tuesday, as was a flight from Dallas to Philadelphia scheduled for the same plane.The passengers' 12-hour ordeal is among the lengthiest diversions this year.In February, an American Airlines flight from New York to Delhi landed in Rome after 15 hours, and had to be escorted by Italian fighter jets due to a bomb threat.Last month, an Air India flight turned back to Chicago after most of its bathrooms stopped working, resulting in a nine-hour flight to nowhere.Recommended video

An officer presents soldiers with the insignia of Germany's new 45th Armored Brigade as it officially entered service in Lithuania. Alexander Welscher/picture alliance via Getty Images 2025-04-02T12:02:50Z SaveSaved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? Germany is deploying troops to another country on a long-term basis for the first time since World War II.It's putting thousands of soldiers in Lithuania, a NATO member that borders Russia.It described the move as an effort to protect NATO. Germany's defense spending is also rising.Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr, announced on Tuesday that it had created a new brigade, the 45th Armored Brigade, to be stationed in Lithuania.It will be the first long-term deployment of German soldiers to another country since World War II, according to the Associated Press.Brigadier General Christoph Huber, Commander of the 45th Armored Brigade, said that with its creation, "we're not only moving toward operational readiness, we're taking responsibility.""For the alliance, for Lithuania, for Europe's security," he said. "As a sign of our determination to defend peace and freedom with our partners."Russia's invasion of Ukraine has sparked a surge of defense agreements and spending among European countries.When plans were first made for the 45th Armored Brigade in 2023, Germany described it as part of growing efforts by NATO members to boost both their own security and the security of NATO's eastern borders.Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius, previously said, "With this war-ready brigade, we're taking on leadership responsibility on NATO's eastern flank." German and Lithuanian soldiers hold a German flag at a ceremony for the new 45th Armored Brigade. Alexander Welscher/picture alliance via Getty Images The new brigade is made up of several battalions and will have around 5,000 soldiers and civilian staff, the Bundeswehr saidIt added that the brigade's command facility was already fully operational and that the aim was to have it at full wartime readiness by 2027.Lithuania which borders the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and close Russian ally Belarus is one of the countries that has sounded the alarm the loudest that Russia could move beyond Ukraine to attack elsewhere in Europe.It is also one of NATO's biggest defense spenders by proportion of GDP, and one of Ukraine's biggest allies, describing Ukrainian troops as the ones who are protecting all of Europe.There are already NATO troops in Lithuania, on a rotating basis, with a multinational battlegroup led by Germany. NATO countries have also deployed assets like fighter jets and air defenses there.US troops are among those stationed in Lithuania, although their long-term future is less clear, with President Donald Trump critical of US allies, of NATO, and of assistance to Ukraine.Dovil akalien, Lithuania's defense minister, told Business Insider in February that her country wants US troops to stay, and that she expected the US could see "eye to eye" with countries who pay their part when it comes to defense."We do our part," she said, adding that she expects the US to do its part, too.Lithuania has also been strengthening its border with Russia.Germany's new brigade is the latest in a series of measures introduced by the country since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.It spent an estimated 1.51% of its GDP on defense in 2022, which jumped to an estimated 2.12% in 2024, according to NATO estimates.The rise in defense purchases by Germany, and Europe more broadly, has been a boon for the continent's defense industries.German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall said in March that it expects sales this year to rise by 25% to 30%.Germany's defense spending has increased less than some of its allies: It ranked 15th out of 31 NATO members for defense spending as a proportion of GDP in 2024, according to NATO estimates.But it has vowed to do more.After grappling with its World War I and World War II legacies, which led to an avoidance of heavy militarism, Germany has committed to major military moves.Lawmakers this month voted to alter the German constitution in a way that would unlock billions of dollars that could be used for defense spending.akalien, Lithuania's defense minister, told BI in February that Europe "needs to up our defuse spending very fast and very significantly."She said that Europe needs to be able to match the US, and to match Russia, which is escalating its own defense production: "We need to catch up to the speed of Russia," she said.Recommended video

The day this article goes up, April 2, has been pegged by President Donald Trump as Liberation Day: the day his suite of tariffs will go into effect and thus, in some unspecified sense, liberate the United States.The pre-history of this disastrous set of policies, which will only make America poorer and alienate it from its closest allies, is as long and weird as youd expect from Trump. Part of the story seems to involve him losing an auction in 1988 for a piano used in Casablanca to a Japanese collector, thus confirming that Japan was an economic threat. Sure, fine, that seems par for the course with this guy.But if you want to understand why not only Trump but now large parts of both parties have reoriented themselves to support tariffs, I think the key text is not Casablanca but a 2013 paper by David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson thats almost as famous (among economists, at least). If you follow economic research at all, you know this as the China shock paper.This story was first featured in the Future Perfect newsletter.Sign up here to explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week.The authors found that the surge of US manufacturing imports from China between 1991 and 2007 led to large job losses in the US manufacturing sector, losses that were concentrated in a few particular geographic locations. Areas affected saw wages fall for a surprisingly long time, and uptake of government benefit programs like unemployment and disability insurance.The DC think tank worlds understanding of this finding was sweeping: Free trade didnt work. Bipartisan advocates like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had promised that deals like permanent normal trade relations or NAFTA would be win-win propositions, when in reality they hollowed out American manufacturing. After Trump won in 2016 on a fiercely anti-trade platform, aided by support in China shock-affected states like Wisconsin and Michigan, many Democrats saw the implication as obvious: It was time to turn their backs on trade, as a matter of political survival if nothing else.If you actually read the China shock literature you will notice that the authors do not come to any conclusions remotely this broad. The conclusions they do reach, though, can help us understand why Trumps particular policy response will be so damaging.Its the shock not the ChinaReading the original China shock paper and its follow-ups, something that sticks out is how little the literature is about trade policy per se. Autor, Dorn, and Hanson are clear that the shock came not just from changing US policy toward China, but from Chinas massive increase in manufacturing productivity during this period. That means the employment losses in certain areas werent solely due to the US loosening barriers, but also to changes within China that US policy couldnt alter.The authors are equally clear that trade wasnt the sole driver of declining manufacturing employment. They estimate that the China shock was responsible for about a quarter of the decline in manufacturing jobs over the period they study. Thats significant, for sure, but also underlines how much other factors like labor-saving technologies in the sector, or consumers shifting demand toward services were behind the hollowing-out of old factory towns. Even if China had stayed poor and not become a major exporter, the US still would have rapidly lost manufacturing jobs, just not quite as many.Id be remiss if I didnt mention that many researchers have found that Chinese imports have, overall, made Americans better off. That includes Autor, Dorn, and Hanson, who concluded that the gains to consumers from cheaper goods were somewhat larger than the employment losses. That doesnt mean the concentrated hurt from the China shock was okay. Clearly the US should have done a better job of helping affected regions transition to a more competitive economy. But simply not doing the China shock, even if that had been possible, would not have made the US better off as a whole. Nor would adding tariffs now, some 15 years after the China shock ended, do any good. Follow-up work by the team on the Trump tariffs during his first term found that they reduced US employment overall by inviting foreign retaliation.Rather than a jeremiad against free trade, its better to understand the China shock literature as explaining what happens when a specific region takes a big economic hit whether due to imports or something else. Autor has compared it to the losses West Virginia suffered as the US transitioned away from coal. The forward-looking lesson is not about how we contend with manufacturing competition, Autor told an interviewer in 2021. It is not even [only] about trade per se, but about adjustment for unemployed workers and hard-hit areas. How costly it is, how slow it is, and how we can make it work better.Its not the China part thats crucial: Its the shock.Maybe dont do another shock for no reason?Trumps suite of tariffs are, obviously, not going to bring manufacturing back to the US in any meaningful way. But theyre certainly shocking. Theyve introduced massive uncertainty to international trade and to supply chains that cross borders, like the deeply integrated Michigan-Ontario auto sector. Theyve forced manufacturers and retailers that depend on imports as inputs or sales items to scramble to adjust.This exact dynamic, this kind of massive economic shift imposed with little time to prepare or adjust, is what made the China shock so painful for certain regions. The tariff shock, far from undoing the effects of the China shock, could simply replicate its worst aspects, just without the corresponding benefit in terms of economic growth and cheaper goods.The Trump team, as Paul Krugman observed during the first trade war, is acting like a motorist who runs over a pedestrian, then tries to fix the damage by backing up and runs over the victim a second time.Its not yet clear if the damage will be as economically concentrated as the China shock was. Large-scale government layoffs and contract cancellations are threatening a localized DC recession, and tariffs on Canada and Mexico would disproportionately hurt border states, but the damage of higher prices and job losses from tariffs will be felt broadly across the whole country. Since part of the reason the China shock garnered so much attention was its concentration in presidential swing states, this might make the tariff shock less politically motivating.But in just about every aspect, the tariff shock is worse than the China shock. The China shock made prices cheaper for most Americans all those cheap appliances and toys but the tariff shock will raise prices. The China shock was concentrated in the manufacturing sector, and manufacturing-heavy regions; the tariff shock will affect many sectors.Perhaps worst of all, where the China shock was largely unavoidable, the tariff shock is entirely self-inflicted. Its being chosen by US policymakers, against the interests of their constituents and allied nations. They could just as easily not do it at all. Its an act of economic national suicide the likes of which the US hasnt seen in decades.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

One of the buzziest books in America right now is Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompsons bestseller on why our failure to build enough homes has contributed to soaring costs and needless political strife. And one of the most provocative movements in politics these days is pronatalism a coalition sounding the alarm on people not having enough babies. Pronatalists are gaining power in the White House (Trump recently dubbed himself the fertilization president) and the movement just wrapped up its second annual US convention in Austin, Texas. As housing supply and birth rates have become twin focal points in Americas policy conversation, a growing number of wonks are drawing connections between these two, arguing that expanding housing supply wouldnt just ease affordability it could also help boost fertility. The Institute for Family Studies a think tank which launched its own pronatalism division last summer recently published a report making this case, revealing how housing costs have become crushing for young adults. The median home now costs nine years of a young persons income, up from five years in 1969. Homeownership rates for Americans under 35 have collapsed from 50 percent to around 30 percent since 1980.Many of these young adults arent even living in their own rentals. The National Association of Home Builders found that in 2023, 19.2 percent of young adults (or 8.5 million people) lived with their parents, compared to less than 12 percent of young adults in 2000. As Robert Dietz, chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders, noted last month at a conference in Washington, DC, the surge of young adults living with parents represents a failure to launch that directly impacts marriage and fertility rates.Dietzs conclusions are supported by IFS. Living with ones parents has a huge negative effect on fertility according to the think tank, meaning that as more young adults delay moving into their own homes, they also delay or forgo having children. In fact, IFS researchers find that no other factor not undesired singleness, preference for leisure, schooling, child care costs, or student debt limited ones childbearing goals more than housing costs. As a 32-year-old woman getting married in two months and still renting this all strikes a chord. Much of my reporting focuses on ways to expand the desperately needed housing supply, and I am compelled by the argument that making it easier for people to live independently would, in turn, make it easier for them to form and sustain romantic relationships.But banking too much on housing misses deeper shifts in our social fabric. Housing affordability matters enormously, but exists within a cultural landscape where attitudes toward family formation and parenthood are fundamentally changing. Fewer young adults are prioritizing committed partnerships as a life goal, with many explicitly choosing to remain single.Perhaps most significant are the widening economic, political, and cultural divides between young men and women. Between 2012 and 2023, young women became dramatically more liberal while young men drifted rightward. By 2023, over 50 percent of young women identified as liberal, up from 32 percent 11 years earlier. As women have pursued more education and focused more seriously on careers, mens earning power has declined. Meanwhile, the rising cost of living continues to reshape everyones economic future.The 2024 election revealed that among voters under 30, the gender gap between women and men who supported Kamala Harris was twice as large as in other age groups. This isnt just about voting habits; 68 percent of Harris voters believed society should dedicate more resources to helping girls, while only 35 percent of Trump voters shared that view.Disagreements over issues like whether women should have access to abortion and birth control are just far more fundamental than quibbles around zoning and sluggish permitting processes. A majority of young Democrats now say they wouldnt date someone with opposing political views with women far more likely than men to draw this line. Moreover, in the backdrop of all this is a society that has grown increasingly hostile to parents and kids. Ive written about millennial mom dread and the increasingly grim ways motherhood is depicted in America, and last week pop star Chappell Roan lit up the internet after declaring that all her friends with kids are in hell. The latest cover of the New Yorker depicts a mother hauling a baby and stroller alone down into a subway station, symbolizing the lack of accessibility and support for parents in much of society. These portrayals often overshadow the profound fulfillment many parents still find in raising children, creating a distorted picture of family life that discourages young adults from seeing parenthood as viable.Can housing policy help address these deeper problems? The IFS report makes a number of sensible recommendations: loosening zoning codes, allowing accessory dwelling units, reducing minimum lot sizes. More affordable family-friendly housing would certainly help.But we should be clear-eyed about the limits of policy interventions. A bigger home for raising children looks a lot less attractive if the surrounding community still remains hostile, and our public spaces and cultural institutions increasingly treat children as unwelcome intrusions. A recent Pew survey found 69 percent of adults say its rarely or never acceptable to bring a child into a place thats typically for adults like a bar or upscale restaurant, and complaints about kids on planes abound. Journalist Stephanie Murray has written thoughtfully about the ways in which people feel comfortable making proclamations about disliking kids. The uncomfortable truth is that we dont yet know if voluntary policy measures like more affordable housing, safer streets for pedestrians, better stroller accessibility, paid leave, and subsidized child care will be enough to reverse declining birth rates. I feel comfortable taking the bet that they would definitely help and are intrinsically worth pursuing even if not but they cant address the deeper question of whether young men and women want to build lives together in the first place.See More:

Sakurai is working on a new project, but its identity is being kept under wraps (YouTube)Masahiro Sakurai is looking forward to todays Nintendo Switch 2 showcase, but hes downplayed the chances of his next game making an appearance.Its unlikely anything from todays Nintendo Direct for the Nintendo Switch 2 will leak ahead of time, so fans can only speculate about what games will be announced during the proceedings.As such, its easy to assume that any developer who acknowledges the showcase on social media is secretly teasing their game will make an appearance.In the case of Super Smash Bros. creator Masahiro Sakurai, however, hes got ahead of the curb and told his followers that hes as in the dark about Nintendos plans as everyone else is.Earlier this morning on X, Sakurai shared Nintendos announcement about the Switch 2 showcases runtime, expressing surprise at how long it will be.Immediately sensing at how the internet would react to his comments, he followed up with an explicit statement that he doesnt know what will be shown, reminding everyone that he doesnt actually work at Nintendo (his company, Sora, isnt a Nintendo subsidiary).I know people are going to suspect no matter what I say, but I do not know the contents of the announcement (besides, I dont belong to Nintendo), wrote Sakurai (as translated by Automaton), adding that hes still looking forward to the showcase.Sakurai is justified in his assumptions. When he shared Nintendos announcement for last weeks Nintendo Direct all about games for the original Switch, people believed he was subtly teasing something Smash Bros. related or a remaster of Kid Icarus: Uprising.Obviously, neither of those wound up happening and there wasnt even any mention of Sakurais next project, which hes been working on since 2022 and many are hoping is the next Smash Bros. game.More TrendingWhatever it is, its presumably in development for the Switch 2 but, if Sakurais comments are to be taken at face value, it may not make an appearance at todays showcase either.What Nintendo Switch 2 games will be shown at todays showcase?Its safe to assume the new Mario Kart that was teased in the Switch 2 reveal will make an appearance at the Nintendo Direct. The brief footage shown raised a lot of questions, including whether it will launch alongside the console, so Nintendo will hopefully have answers later today.Aside from that, common theories include a new 3D Mario platformer and a Switch 2 version of Metroid Prime 4: Beyond. The latters only confirmed for the original Switch, but its suspected to also launch for Switch 2, especially after Nintendo accidentally confirmed the existence of Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games.The showcase should also confirm whatever new features the Switch 2 will have. Nintendo has used its Nintendo Today! app to tease the controllers new C button; something thats been the subject of fan theories and rumours for months regarding its functionality. Not much longer till the Switch 2s secrets are unveiled (Nintendo)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralSign up for exclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy