Table of ContentsTable of ContentsYou will see ads, mostlyOh, come on, YouTube!Googles price hikes for YouTube Premium have left a rather sour impression lately, and to further complicate things, its experiments with a cheaper subscription tier have also been rather haphazard. YouTube Premium Lite was first offered, with a regional caveat, in 2021. It got axed in 2023, but returned in late 2024 for certain markets as yet another pilot.Today, Google is officially introducing it for the US market. It costs $7.99 per month, compared to the $13.99 fee subscribers pay for the standard plan. Before we dig into the details, heres the standard warning. The company is still calling it a pilot, which means the terms can change, or the whole project might be yanked off.Recommended VideosEither can happen, once you take a look at whats on the table. First, its not an ad-free digital utopia. With a YouTube Premium subscription, most videos will be ad-free, covering the gaming, fashion, beauty, and news segments among others. Shorts and music content will feature ads, too.Please enable Javascript to view this contentWith Premium Lite, users can enjoy their favorite content with fewer interruptions, says the company in a blog post. There are plans of expanding this tier to more countries later this year, including the regions where it was initially tested in a small capacity.GoogleDuring the test phase last year, Google used the term limited ads, telling YouTube Premium Lite subscribers that ad breaks will only appear if they search for specific content. Google didnt explicitly mention that in its announcement earlier today, but left it as a sub-text underneath the marketing image.The new ad terms are clearly a step backward, as you dont specifically know which content might flash an ad in your face, and yet, most video categories are covered either way. With YouTube Premium Lite, Google has also taken YouTube Music Premium out of the equation, which means no more ad-free music streaming. That perk is now reserved for the pricier standard tier.But theres more to the torrent of bad news here.The pocket-friendly subscription bundle doesnt support downloads for offline watching. I personally love this feature, as it saves me the hassle of buffering and poor quality streaming on cellular networks. Plus, its perfect for binge-watching, as well.The finally big functional cut is the lack of background play. In a nutshell, the YouTube app must always run in the foreground, or split-screen mode to watch content. Google calls it the right balance of features and benefits. Who cares about an ever active screen sipping the battery life, or a less-distracting experience of listening a podcast, either way?Editors Recommendations

Unless youve been hiding under a rock, its been impossible to escape the headlines around the new tariffs imposed on Canadian, Mexican, and Chinese imports to the U.S. (or the many retaliatory tariffs that these countries have imposed on U.S. products). The expectation is that these tariffs will make certain goods more expensive, regardless where you live. But in a bizarre twist of timing, tariffs, and currency exchange rates, one particularly popular Apple product is cheaper in Canada than in the U.S.: the AirPods Pro 2.Apple sells the AirPods Pro 2 in the U.S. for $249 and $329 ($CAD) in Canada. A quick look at current currency conversion rates shows that despite the higher number in Canada, thats actually the cheaper of the two prices. According to RBC Banks currency calculator, if you hold U.S. dollars right now, you can buy $329 CAD for just $236 USD a $13-dollar savings.Recommended VideosGranted, thats not a massive difference, but given the way things are going, its a difference that could grow in the near future.Please enable Javascript to view this contentAs a Chinese-made gadget, Apples flagship wireless earbuds belong to the group of products covered by the U.S. 10% tariff on imports from China. For now, Apples price on the noise-canceling earbuds hasnt changed: Its still set at $249 on Apples website. Apple could raise the price in the future to offset the tariff, or it could choose to take the hit and keep the price as-is well have to wait and see.Canada has no plans to tariff Chinese imports, so Apple wont face any tariff-related pressure to raise Canadian prices. However, the Canadian dollar has been on a downward slide relative to the U.S. dollar for months and the trade war between the countries threatens to depress the value of Canadas currency even further.If Apple is forced to raise its prices in the U.S. because of tariffs, and if the Canadian dollar slips further, the discrepancy in Apple pricing between these two countries could widen.If it does, you should think of it as a temporary deal. The AirPods Pro 2 price in Canadian dollars represents a 32% increase on the U.S. price. However, Apples newest products, like the AirPods 4, AirPods 4 with ANC, 2025 iPad Air, and 2025 M4 MacBook Air all feature larger Canadian increases, ranging from 38% on the AirPods 4 ($129 USD/$179 CAD) to 45% on the iPad Air ($549 USD/$799 CAD). Clearly Apple is keeping close tabs on the currency situation and has priced its latest products accordingly.Editors Recommendations

Illustration: Michael HoewelerThe chef: Charlie MitchellHis restaurant:Sagain New York CityWhat hes known for: Working his way from Detroit to New York City and climbing the fine-dining ladder; earning a Michelin star early in hiscareer; taking the helm at Saga after his mentor, James Kent, passed away.The sort of elaborate, multicourse meals Charlie Mitchell cooks at Saga, in lower Manhattan, dont necessarily translate outside a restaurant kitchen. I cook tasting menus, he said. But with home cooks in mind, the chef streamlined this steak au poivre recipe.

Self-inflicted setbacks? China aims to recruit top US scientists as Trump tries to kill the CHIPS Act Tech innovation in US likely to stall if Trump ends the CHIPS Act. Ashley Belanger Mar 5, 2025 1:29 pm | 12 Credit: klyaksun | iStock / Getty Images Plus Credit: klyaksun | iStock / Getty Images Plus Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreOn Tuesday, Donald Trump finally made it clear to Congress that he wants to kill the CHIPS and Science Acta $280 billion bipartisan law Joe Biden signed in 2022 to bring more semiconductor manufacturing into the US and put the country at the forefront of research and innovation.Trump has long expressed frustration with the high cost of the CHIPS Act, telling Congress on Tuesday that it's a "horrible, horrible thing" to "give hundreds of billions of dollars" in subsidies to companies that he claimed "take our money" and "don't spend it," Reuters reported."You should get rid of the CHIPS Act, and whatever is left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt," Trump said.Instead, Trump potentially plans to shift the US from incentivizing chips manufacturing to punishing firms dependent on imports, threatening a 25 percent tariff on all semiconductor imports that could kick in as soon as April 2, CNBC reported.The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden's legacy, and because he made it a priority, much of the $52.7 billion in subsidies that Trump is criticizing has already been finalized. In 2022, Biden approved $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor firms and in his last weeks in office, he finalized more than $33 billion in awards, Reuters noted.Among the awardees are leading semiconductor firms, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Micron, Intel, Nvidia, and Samsung Electronics. Although Trump claims the CHIPS Act is one-sided and only serves to benefit firms, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, the law sparked $450 billion in private investments increasing semiconductor production across 28 states by mid-2024.With the CHIPS Act officially in Trump's crosshairs, innovation appears likely to stall the longer that lawmakers remain unsettled on whether the law stays or goes. Some officials worried that Trump might interfere with Biden's binding agreements with leading firms already holding up their end of the bargain, Reuters reported. For example, Micron plans to invest $100 billion in New York and TSMC just committed to spending the same over the next four years to expand construction of US chips fabs that's already well underway.So far, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has only indicated that he will review the finalized awards, noting that the US wouldn't be giving TSMC any new awards, Reuters reported.But the CHIPS Act does much more than provide subsidies to lure leading semiconductor companies into the US. For the first time in decades, the law created a new arm of the National Science Foundation (NSF)the Directorate of Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP)which functions unlike any other part of NSF and now appears existentially threatened.Designed to take the country's boldest ideas from basic research to real-world applications as fast as possible to make the US as competitive as possible, TIP helps advance all NSF research and was supposed to ensure US leadership in breakthrough technologies, including AI, 6G communications, biotech, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.Biden allocated $20 billion to launch TIP through the CHIPS Act to accelerate technology development not just at top firms but also in small research settings across the US. But as soon as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) started making cuts at NSF this year, TIP got hit the hardest. Seemingly TIP was targeted not because DOGE deemed it the least consequential but simply because it was the youngest directorate at NSF with the most workers in transition when Trump took office and DOGE abruptly announced it was terminating all "probationary" federal workers.It took years to get TIP ready to flip the switch to accelerate tech innovation in the US. Without it, Trump risks setting the US back at a time when competitors like China are racing ahead and wooing US scientists who suddenly may not know if or when their funding is coming, NSF workers and industry groups told Ars.Without TIP, NSF slows downLast month, DOGE absolutely scrambled the NSF by forcing arbitrary cuts of so-called probationary employeesmostly young scientists, some of whom were in transition due to promotions. All those cuts were deemed illegal and finally reversed Monday by court order after weeks of internal chaos reportedly stalling or threatening to delay some of the highest-priority research in the US."The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency," US district judge William Alsup said, calling probationary employees the "life blood" of government agencies.Ars granted NSF workers anonymity to discuss how cuts were impacting research. At TIP, a federal worker told Ars that one of the probationary cuts in particular threatened to do the most damage.Because TIP is so new, only one worker was trained to code automated tracking forms that helped decision-makers balance budgets and approve funding for projects across NSF in real time. Ars' source likened it to holding the only key to the vault of NSF funding. And because TIP is so different from other NSF brancheshiring experts never pulled into NSF before and requiring customized resources to coordinate projects across all NSF fields of researchthe insider suggested another government worker couldn't easily be substituted. It could take possibly two years to hire and train a replacement on TIP's unique tracking system, the source said, while TIP's (and possibly all of NSF's) efficiency is likely strained.TIP has never been fully functional, the TIP insider confirmed, and could be choked off right as it starts helping to move the needle on US innovation. "Imagine where we are in two years and where China is in two years in quantum computing, semiconductors, or AI," the TIP insider warned, pointing to China's surprisingly advanced AI model DeepSeek as an indicator of how quickly tech leadership in global markets can change.On Monday, NSF emailed all workers to confirm that all probationary workers would be reinstated "right away." But the damage may already be done as it's unclear how many workers plan to return. When TIP lost the coderwho was seemingly fired for a technicality while transitioning to a different payscaleNSF workers rushed to recommend the coder on LinkedIn, hoping to help the coder quickly secure another opportunity in industry or academia.Ars could not reach the coder to confirm whether a return to TIP is in the cards. But Ars' source at TIP and another NSF worker granted anonymity said that probationary workers may be hesitant to return because they are likely to be hit in any official reductions in force (RIFs) in the future."RIFs done the legal way are likely coming down the pipe, so these staff are not coming back to a place of security," the NSF worker said. "The trust is broken. Even for those that choose to return, they'd be wise to be seeking other opportunities."And even losing the TIP coder for a couple of weeks seemingly slows NSF down at a time when the US seemingly can't afford to lose a single day."We're going to get murdered" if China sets the standard on 6G or AI, the TIP worker fears.Rivals and allies wooing top US scientistsOn Monday, "six leading organizations representing more than 305,000 people in computing, information technology, and technical innovation across US industry, academia, and government" wrote to Congress demanding protections for the US research enterprise.The groups warned that funding freezes and worker cuts at NSFand other agencies, including the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health"have caused disruption and uncertainty" and threaten "long-lasting negative consequences for our competitiveness, national security, and economic prosperity."Deeming America's technology leadership at risk, the groups pointed out that "in computing alone, a federal investment in research of just over $10 billion annually across 24 agencies and offices underpins a technology sector that contributes more than $2 trillion to the US GDP each year." Cutting US investment "would be a costly mistake, far outweighing any short-term savings," the groups warned.In a separate statement, the Computing Research Association (CRA) called NSF cuts, in particular, a "deeply troubling, self-inflicted setback to US leadership in computing research" that appeared "penny-wise and pound-foolish.""NSF is one of the most efficient federal agencies, operating with less than 9 percent overhead costs," CRA said. "These arbitrary terminations are not justified by performance metrics or efficiency concerns; rather, they represent a drastic and unnecessary weakening of the US research enterprise."Many NSF workers are afraid to speak up, the TIP worker told Ars, and industry seems similarly tight-lipped as confusion remains. Only one of the organizations urging Congress to intervene agreed to talk to Ars about the NSF cuts and the significance of TIP. Kathryn Kelley, the executive director of the Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation, confirmed that while members are more aligned with NSF's Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering and the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, her group agrees that all NSF cuts are "deeply" concerning."We agree that the uncertainty and erosion of trust within the NSF workforce could have long-lasting effects on the agencys ability to attract and retain top talent, particularly in such specialized areas," Kelley told Ars. "This situation underscores the need for continued investment in a stable, well-supported workforce to maintain the US's leadership in science and innovation."Other industry sources unwilling to go on the record told Ars that arbitrary cuts largely affecting the youngest scientists at NSF threatened to disrupt a generation of researchers who envisioned long careers advancing US tech. There's now a danger that those researchers may be lured to other countries heavily investing in science and currently advertising to attract displaced US researchers, including not just rivals like China but also allies like Denmark.Those sources questioned the wisdom of using the Elon Musk-like approach of breaking the NSF to rebuild it when it's already one of the leanest organizations in government.Ars confirmed that some PhD programs have been cancelled, as many academic researchers are already widely concerned about delayed or cancelled grants and generally freaked out about where to get dependable funding outside the NSF. And in industry, some CHIPS Act projects have already been delayed, as companies like Intel try to manage timelines without knowing what's happening with CHIPS funding, AP News reported."Obviously chip manufacturing companies will slow spending on programs they previously thought they were getting CHIPS Act funding for if not cancel those projects outright," the Semiconductor Advisors, an industry group, forecasted in a statement last month.The TIP insider told Ars that the CHIPS Act subsidies for large companies that Trump despises mostly fuel manufacturing in the US, while funding for smaller research facilities is what actually advances technology. Reducing efficiency at TIP would likely disrupt those researchers the most, the TIP worker suggested, proclaiming that's why TIP must be saved at all costs.Ashley BelangerSenior Policy ReporterAshley BelangerSenior Policy Reporter Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience. 12 Comments

Elon vs. OpenAI Elon Musk loses initial attempt to block OpenAIs for-profit conversion OpenAI can proceed with for-profit shift while litigation continues, judge rules. Jon Brodkin Mar 5, 2025 1:10 pm | 10 Credit: Getty Images | Vincent Feuray Credit: Getty Images | Vincent Feuray Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreA federal judge rejected Elon Musk's request to block OpenAI's planned conversion from a nonprofit to for-profit entity but expedited the case so that Musk's core claims can be addressed in a trial before the end of this year.Musk had filed a motion for preliminary injunction in US District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that OpenAI's for-profit conversation "violates the terms of Musk's donations" to the company. But Musk failed to meet the burden of proof needed for an injunction, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled yesterday."Plaintiffs Elon Musk, [former OpenAI board member] Shivon Zilis, and X.AI Corp. ('xAI') collectively move for a preliminary injunction barring defendants from engaging in various business activities, which plaintiffs claim violate federal antitrust and state law," Rogers wrote. "The relief requested is extraordinary and rarely granted as it seeks the ultimate relief of the case on an expedited basis, with a cursory record, and without the benefit of a trial."Rogers said that "the Court is prepared to offer an expedited schedule on the core claims driving this litigation [to] address the issues which are allegedly more urgent in terms of public, not private, considerations." There would be important public interest considerations if the for-profit shift is found to be illegal at a trial, she wrote.Musk said OpenAI took advantage of himNoting that OpenAI donors may have taken tax deductions from a nonprofit that is now turning into a for-profit enterprise, Rogers said the court "agrees that significant and irreparable harm is incurred when the public's money is used to fund a non-profit's conversion into a for-profit." But as for the motion to block the for-profit conversion before a trial, "The request for an injunction barring any steps towards OpenAI's conversion to a for-profit entity is DENIED."In a summary of Musk's complaint, Rogers said it is alleged that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman "took advantage of Musk's altruism in order to lure him into funding the venture" but was only "pretending to share Musk's concern about the trajectory of the artificial intelligence industry." Musk says he gave $44 million to OpenAI from 2016 to 2020.Altman and co-founder Gregory Brockman allegedly "solicited millions in donations from Musk to build OpenAI on the promise that the organization would put people over profit and serve as a counterweight to the other dominant players in the AI space. With full knowledge that Musk's money was contingent upon using his money charitably, defendants set about building a for-profit behemoth contrary to their original promises."Musk cited emails but no formal contractMusk supported his claim with emails from 2015 to 2017 that he says show "an intent to make the donation contingent on OpenAI remaining a non-profit," Rogers wrote. He also cited his own social media posts "from 2023 and 2024 expressing anger at OpenAI's betrayal of its original non-profit motivations."But there was no formal contract submitted as evidence. "Other than these emails, no contract or gifting document with terms and conditions exists," Rogers wrote. "On this basis, defendants dispute the allegations. Whether Musk's emails and social media posts constitute a writing sufficient to constitute an actual contract or charitable trust between the parties is debatable."Rogers granted that the emails are "highly suggestive" for Musk's case but said they aren't enough on their own to demonstrate a likelihood of success at trial. "There is, for example, defendants' counter-evidence implying that Musk himself considered the possibility of being the one to turn OpenAI into a for-profit," she wrote. "On balance, the Court finds the emails are insufficient for purposes of the high burden required for a preliminary injunction and the question of likelihood of success on the merits to be a toss-up."Rogers found that because "the threshold question of whether a charitable trust was created remains a toss-up, Musk has not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits sufficient to obtain an injunction."Trial expedited to fall 2025Musk's lawsuit also names OpenAI investor and partner Microsoft as a defendant and alleges that the companies violated antitrust law "based on the alleged issuance of a so-called 'fund no competitors' edict issued by OpenAI and Microsoft allegedly commanding OpenAI investors to avoid investing in any competitor." But Rogers' ruling said the lawsuit "has not actually alleged, or provided evidence of, an actual agreement between Microsoft and OpenAI to collude. That Microsoft is a major investor in OpenAI does not, by itself, support such a finding."Musk further complained about "interlocking directorates on the Microsoft and OpenAI boards" and sought an order "barring either corporation from benefiting from improper information sharing." The overall case could drag on for years, but Rogers said the question of OpenAI's for-profit conversion can be addressed in 2025."[G]iven the public interest at stake and potential for harm if a conversion contrary to law occurred, the Court is prepared to expedite trial to the fall of 2025 solely on that claim and potentially the interrelated contract-based claims," she wrote. "However, the Court would require all ancillary claims to be stayed. As discussed at the hearing, it is unlikely the full case will be ready for trial until 2027 or 2028."Musk and a consortium of investors recently made a $97.4 billion offer to buy OpenAI last week. OpenAI was founded as a nonprofit in 2015 and created an additional "capped profit" entity in 2019. That would change with OpenAI's planned shift to a for-profit public benefit corporation, but a nonprofit arm would continue to exist. OpenAI has reportedly considered granting special voting powers to its nonprofit board so that it would retain control over the restructured company.Separately, UK authorities today dropped an investigation into whether the Microsoft/OpenAI partnership violates competition law.Jon BrodkinSenior IT ReporterJon BrodkinSenior IT Reporter Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry. 10 Comments

Light has been made into a strange material called a supersolidBaac3nes/Getty ImagesAn odd solid that can flow like a fluid has been created from light for the first time. Studying it will help researchers better understand exotic quantum states of matter.We actually made light into a solid. Thats pretty awesome, says Dimitris Trypogeorgos at the National Research Council (CNR) in Italy. He notes Daniele Sanvitto, also at CNR, showed how light could become a fluid more than a decade ago. Now Trypogeorgos, Sanvitto and their colleagues have used light to make not just any solid, but a quantum supersolid. AdvertisementSupersolids simultaneously have zero viscosity and a crystal-like structure akin to the arrangement of atoms in salt crystals. These strange materials have no counterpart outside of the quantum realm. Because of this, they have previously only been created in experiments with atoms cooled to extremely low temperatures, where otherwise negligible quantum effects become dominant.But in this experiment, the researchers replaced ultracold atoms with the semiconductor aluminium gallium arsenide and a laser.They shone the laser onto a small piece of the semiconductor that had a pattern of narrow ridges. Complex interactions between the light and the material eventually formed a type of hybrid particle called a polariton. The ridge pattern constrained how these quasiparticles could move and what energies they could have in such a way that the polaritons formed a supersolid.Sanvitto says the team had to very precisely measure enough properties of this trapped and transformed light to prove it was both a solid and a fluid with no viscosity. This was a challenge because scientists had never created and experimentally evaluated a supersolid made from light before, he says.The new experiment contributes to physicists general understanding of how quantum matter can change its state by going through a phase transition, says Alberto Bramati at Sorbonne University in France. The team clearly demonstrated they made a supersolid, but many more measurements need to be done to understand its properties, he says.Trypogeorgos says light-based supersolids may be easier to manipulate than those previously created with atoms, which could make his teams experiment a first step towards understanding a slew of novel and surprising types of matter.We are really at the beginning of something new, he says.Journal referenceNature DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08616-9Topics:

Bones that appear to have been fashioned into tools date back 1.5 million yearsCSICAncient humans were regularly making tools out of animal bones 1.5 million years ago more than a million years earlier than previously thought. This indicates that they could adapt the techniques they used to make stone tools to repurpose bone, a very different material.It also raises the question of why there is no record of people consistently making bone tools for another million years. Have examples in that gap not been preserved or discovered, or did people abandon them in favour of something better?

2025-03-05T18:46:27Z Read in app Seth Jones, seen here with his wife, is a former mortgage broker in Florida who sold his investment properties. Courtesy of Seth Jones This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.Have an account? Seth Jones had a real-estate-investing rule: only rent out homes for 1% or less of their value.He sold his 10 properties and put the money into an exchange-traded fund portfolio, or ETFs.Jones says life is easier without the headaches that come with property management.This is an as-told-to essay based on a conversation with software engineer Seth Jones, 36, who lives in Port Orange, Florida, about 20 minutes south of Daytona Beach. Jones started buying investment properties in 2015, then began selling them off in 2020 to put his money elsewhere. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.When I was younger, I read books like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad," and "The Millionaire Real Estate Investor." That's all I wanted to do. When I left the military at 22, the first thing I did was get a job as a real-estate agent because I thought it would help me become an investor.My wife and I moved to Port Orange, Florida, in 2013 to be closer to her parents. I quickly realized Florida was saturated with agents. Even back then, there were only a small number of really good mortgage brokers. So I pivoted.It took some time because I had to develop the right credentials. I became a personal banker with a regional bank and worked there for about a year and a half. Eventually, I became the branch manager. The entire time, I was working on my licensing to become a mortgage broker.For years, my wife and I were hyper-focused on saving money. My wife is a teacher and we lived only off her salary. All of my income went into saving to buy properties. We hardly ever ate out and never went to bars. My faith is really important to me, so I spent a lot of time around people in the church, which made it easier. A lot of the people in the church live pretty simply, so we didn't do a lot of things socially or travel-wise, either.The goal was to get to 100 doors. That was my entire focus. I just wanted to build a real-estate business that would eventually support me and my family, and I wanted to do it as fast as possible.I didn't purchase my first property until 2014. They were actually two, each with three bedrooms under $60,000. I was able to pay 15% down.I created a rule to guide my real-estate investing strategyI'm very conservative by nature. Fundamentals have always mattered to me.It's been frustrating to me that in the aftermath of 2008, a lot of people developed a mindset that real estate just doesn't go down in value.I developed a rule as a mortgage broker that I often call the 1% rule. It's very simple, back-of-the-napkin math. When I look at a property, the first thing I look for is whether the monthly rent I can charge for it is greater than 1% of the home's value. So on a $100,000 property, am I able to rent it out for $1,000 per month? On a $200,000 property, am I able to rent it out for $2,000 per month?It's not ironclad and doesn't always make or break a purchase. But I use it as a guidepost and for quick analysis of a deal.After the first two properties, I was able to grow rather quickly. In 2018, I opened my first mortgage brokerage, which increased my income and gave us more resources to invest with. By 2019, I was able to target higher-quality properties in top school districts.My tenth and last purchase was a property in Lexington, South Carolina that I bought for $138,000 in February 2020. By that point, I had realized I had been concentrating all my risk in Florida. I started to get worried about the impacts of a big hurricane and wanted to diversify my portfolio out of state.Doing my research, western South Carolina seemed fairly insulated from national disasters and I found a good school district in Lexington.I ended up with a 10-property portfolio.The COVID real-estate boom worried me and I got outIn the real-estate investing world, everyone used to talk about cash flow.Sometime around 2019, I noticed a shift in focus. I listen to a lot of financial podcasts and I heard everyone's focus change from cash flow-oriented to appreciation-oriented. That's just never how I've looked at underwriting deals.At the beginning of COVID, I anticipated property values were going to be stressed and would potentially go down. Obviously, the opposite happened.I watched things take off. I wasn't sure what was going to happen moving forward, but the fundamentals started to change. I used Reventure, a data aggregator for real estate, pretty extensively. It pulls in data from a lot of different sources, and I would track price-to-rent ratios for the local market.For property values, I've used every website, but I prefer Redfin. I find it to be the most accurate, and I like the feature where you can see comparable sales.I sold two properties in 2019, three in 2020, three in 2021, one in 2022, and one in 2023. The biggest appreciation was a home I purchased for $190,000 that I was able to sell for $500,000.I put all our resources into liquid assets a diversified, multi-asset ETF portfolio of fundamentally sound stocks (SCHD), gold (IAU), long-term treasuries (SCHQ), and short-term treasuries (SCHO).I have no regrets, and I think that I'll be vindicated once we have some type of correction.I have people who tell me I'm an idiot for selling off my properties. They think they could've made 10 times what I did in real estate.I do think real estate is a great tool to build wealth, but it's also true that fundamentals matter. There's a significant difference in my headspace coming from not owning real estate. From a liability perspective, I have no external worries. No one's going to get hurt. I'm not dealing with late-night phone calls.There is still stress in trading stocks and equities. You don't see a ticker on a house going up and down all the time, but life is way simpler.

There are a record number of properties for sale in Florida, with 168,717 homes listed in February.Some cities have doubled the amount of listings on the market since last year.The biggest increase in listings from last year occurred in areas with more affordable homes.Florida's housing market is cooling as a record-setting number of homes were listed for sale in February.According to Realtor.com, 168,717 properties went on the market in February,the highest number the site has recorded since it started keeping track in 2016.The total number of properties for sale in Florida jumped by 40% since February 2024, Realtor.com found. In some cities, there are more than double the number of listings compared to last year. Only seven cities out of the 252 Realtor.com tracked had fewer listings this year than last.Economists and other housing-market experts use increases in inventory to identify areas where demand and competition for houses might be waning. There, homebuyers might start to have an edge over home sellers. Increased inventory is also an indicator that home prices could fall.Even though Palm Beach real estate is experiencing what some brokers call a "Trump bump," with expensive properties changing hands, other parts of the state are getting cheaper."Home shoppers in Bradenton and Sarasota are in for a treat with climbing inventory, falling prices, and longer time on market," Realtor.com senior economic research analyst Hannah Jones said in the report. "Buyers are likely to find more seller flexibility as homeowners aim to attract buyer attention."Because the pandemic housing boom led to record-low levels of inventory nationwide, more homes for sale can sometimes signal a return to normal rather than a housing-market decline. In some parts of Florida, however, the influx of homes on the market and other forces are already having an effect on property values.Take Greenacres, Florida, an enclave 10 miles southwest of West Palm Beach. In January 2025, the median listing price was $259,950, 13% less than in January 2024.Other factors are weighing on the Florida housing market, including relatively higher mortgage rates that stifle homebuyer demand, intensifying property damage from natural disasters, and rising homeowners' association, or HOA, fees.Here are 17 Florida cities with the biggest increases in homes for sale year-over-year, according to data from Realtor.com. Homebuyers and investors may want to eye these spots for better deals and more negotiating power.The Realtor.com data about homes on the market is from February 2025, while the median listing prices are from January, the most recent month available.17. The VillagesThe Villages, Florida. Michael Warren/Getty Images Properties on the market: 594Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 76.5%Median listing price: $389,25016. OldsmarOldsmar, Florida. Anita Denunzio/Getty Images Properties on the market: 144Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 76.7%Median listing price: $379,45015. TequestaTequesta, Florida. Thomas Barrat/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 111Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 76.8%Median listing price: $749,00014. GreenacresGreenacres, Florida. Courtesy of Hana R. Alberts Properties on the market: 331Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 78.9%Median listing price: $259,95013. Fort Myers BeachFort Myers Beach, Florida. Philippe TURPIN/Getty Images Properties on the market: 508Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 83.1%Median listing price: $799,99912. St. AugustineSt. Augustine, Florida. Shutterstock/ Sean Pavone Properties on the market: 1,596Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 84.2%Median listing price: $612,00011. TavaresTavares, Florida. Jillian Cain Photography/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 152Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 92.40%Median listing price: $359,00010. HarmonyHarmony, Florida. JennLShoots/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 121Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 100.00%Median listing price: $364,5009. Royal Palm BeachRoyal Palm Beach, Florida. Andre Delisser/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 218Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 100.00%Median listing price: $479,9508. Ave MariaAve Maria, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images Properties on the market: 218Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 106.60%Median listing price: $474,9007. St. JohnsSt. Johns, Florida. Charles Brown Photo/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 269Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 115.70%Median listing price: $575,0006. St. James CitySt. James, Florida. John Apte/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 123Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 115.80%Median listing price: $599,9005. Dania BeachDania Beach, Florida. Photo by Elena Tarassova/Getty Images Properties on the market: 168Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 118.20%Median listing price: $409,9004. Miami GardensMiami Gardens, Florida. felix Mizioznikov/Getty Images Properties on the market: 309Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 120.70%Median listing price: $499,9993. PaceProperties on the market: 178Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 128.20%Median listing price: $349,0002. Citrus SpringsCitrus Springs, Florida. Kevin O'Neill/Getty Images Properties on the market: 298Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 136.50%Median listing price: $284,9901. St. PetersburgSt. Petersburg, Florida. Sean Pavone/Shutterstock Properties on the market: 2,141Increase in homes for sale year-over-year: 164.1%Median listing price: $440,000

Some things feel like a fact of life: The sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. Winter turns to spring, which turns to summer, which turns to fall. And the deadline to get a REAL ID gets pushed back. That last one may seem more in flux than the other examples, but its been true for nearly a quarter of a century. So whats keeping this 9/11-era law from being fully enforced? And why havent we just given up on implementing it? We answer that and more on this weeks episode of Explain It to Me.Our story begins during the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 Commission wrote a list of recommendations, including securing planes cockpits and making sure theres a way to check who people are when they board a flight. In response to those recommendations, Congress passed the REAL ID Act in 2005. States were supposed to have three years to update state ID requirements. This included adding physical security features and storing copies of documents in a database that other states can access as well. The deadline was extended over and over. Now its 2025, and while the deadline is still May 7, the enforcement might be phased. My Explain It to Me colleagues and I spoke with quite a few people who all had different perspectives.Below are excerpts of our conversation, edited for length and clarity.You can listen to Explain It to Me on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. If youd like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@vox.com or call 1-800-618-8545.What problems were REAL IDs supposed to solve?Justin Oberman, the former TSA assistant administrator:The theory is that you have to demonstrate with multiple proof points that you are in fact who you say you are. Now, the reason that this has limitations is that, at some level, it doesnt really matter if you are in fact who you say you are, if you have evaded the grasp of law enforcement. This is one of these things where it has not been difficult to poke holes in the REAL ID paradigm, which is why you now see a two-decade-plus delay. Its left itself open to these counterarguments that are pretty strong, despite the fact that the underlying intent may have been okay. Udi Ofer, a former New York Civil Liberties Union attorney who wrote a report about the pushback to REAL ID, including privacy concerns: Most people have no idea what [the REAL ID Act] is about other than thinking of it as a mere inconvenience that theyre about to face in the Department of Motor Vehicles. But when the law passed, there was an incredible ideological diversity in the voices of opposition.Tell me about that. Who were the people who were against this? Shenna Bellows, REAL ID critic-turned-issuer: I would meet with LGBT rights groups who were worried about what this meant for the trans community. Then interspersing between immigrant rights groups. There was really this incredible coalition that was diverse, that was very much worried. What were your concerns about REAL ID back when you were executive director of the ACLU in Maine?Bellows: We had two chief concerns about the Real ID Act. First, that the concept of a national ID card or a national drivers license is really contrary to a free society. Second, from a practical perspective, creating a one-stop shop for identity thieves where authenticating documents will be housed from people all across the country raised concerns about individual privacy and security.You ran for state senate in 2016 and won. What did you do regarding REAL ID when you held that office?Bellows: I teamed up with Republican senators in my state to call on President Trump to repeal the real ID, and that didnt happen. Some of the concerns you initially had about REAL ID have those been addressed?Bellows: We are not uploading authentication documents into a federal database, for example. So that does provide a measure of comfort to individuals who are worried about identity theft and security breaches. I think, additionally, we havent seen Real ID be used as a national ID card to date 20 years later. Now youre Maines secretary of state. And part of your job is being head of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, meaning a major part of your job is issuing REAL IDs. Do you have your real ID? Bellows: I didnt have it. I opted out. And again, I collected signatures for the repeal. And I was one of the leaders in trying to repeal Maines REAL ID. But when I became secretary of state especially because Id heard concerns from women about the difficulty in getting it, and because I was concerned about the security procedures in place at Maines Bureau of Motor Vehicles, I did move forward with getting the REAL ID. I wanted to see what was involved, see how hard it was, and then see what happened to my data. It gave me confidence in the professionalism and leadership of my team at the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles. It hasnt changed my advocacy at the federal level because, again, in America, our lives have always been about options. The freedom to be who we are, to be ourselves, and to do what we want in a free society. And so, sure, I have a REAL ID, but it may not be for the person next to me. They may have valid privacy and civil liberties concerns that make them choose to opt out. And for that reason, I still think it would be the right thing for the federal government to repeal the law. Why not extend the deadline again?Carter Langston, TSA press secretary: Because that once again kicks the can down the road. And rather than do that indefinitely, we really do need to start doing something.See More: