Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Entertainment are in talks to license their work to AI startups Udio and Suno, according to a new report from Bloomberg. The deals would set forth a framework for how AI companies compensate a

TechCrunch Sessions: AI hits UC Berkeley’s Zellerbach Hall on June 5 — and today’s your shot at AI trivia glory and two tickets for the price of one. Answer a few brain-busting questions on artificial intelligence, and if you ace it, you might just f

In “The Optimist: Sam Altman, OpenAI, and the Race to Invent the Future,” Wall Street Journal reporter Keach Hagey examines our AI-obsessed moment through one of its key figures — Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of OpenAI. Hagey begins with Altman’s Midwest childhood, then takes readers through his career at startup Loopt, accelerator Y Combinator, and now at OpenAI. She also sheds new light on the dramatic few days when Altman was fired, then quickly reinstated, as OpenAI’s CEO. Looking back at what OpenAI employees now call “the Blip,” Hagey said the failed attempt to oust Altman revealed that OpenAI’s complex structure — with a for-profit company controlled by a nonprofit board — is “not stable.” And with OpenAI largely backing down from plans to let the for-profit side take control, Hagey predicted that this “fundamentally unstable arrangement” will “continue to give investors pause.” Does that mean OpenAI could struggle to raise the funds it needs to keep going? Hagey replied that it could “absolutely” be an issue. “My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge,” she said. “But success is not guaranteed.” In addition, Hagey’s biography (also available as an audiobook on Spotify) examines Altman’s politics, which she described as “pretty traditionally progressive” — making it a bit surprising that he’s struck massive infrastructure deals with the backing of the Trump administration. “But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker,” Hagey said. “Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at.” Techcrunch event Save now through June 4 for TechCrunch Sessions: AI Save $300 on your ticket to TC Sessions: AI—and get 50% off a second. Hear from leaders at OpenAI, Anthropic, Khosla Ventures, and more during a full day of expert insights, hands-on workshops, and high-impact networking. These low-rate deals disappear when the doors open on June 5. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW In an interview with TechCrunch, Hagey also discussed Altman’s response to the book, his trustworthiness, and the AI “hype universe.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.  You open the book by acknowledging some of the reservations that Sam Altman had about the project —  this idea that we tend to focus too much on individuals rather than organizations or broad movements, and also that it’s way too early to assess the impact of OpenAI. Did you share those concerns? Well, I don’t really share them, because this was a biography. This project was to look at a person, not an organization. And I also think that Sam Altman has set himself up in a way where it does matter what kind of moral choices he has made and what his moral formation has been, because the broad project of AI is really a moral project. That is the basis of OpenAI’s existence. So I think these are fair questions to ask about a person, not just an organization. As far as whether it’s too soon, I mean, sure, it’s definitely [early to] assess the entire impact of AI. But it’s been an extraordinary story for OpenAI — just so far, it’s already changed the stock market, it has changed the entire narrative of business. I’m a business journalist. We do nothing but talk about AI, all day long, every day. So in that way, I don’t think it’s too early. And despite those reservations, Altman did cooperate with you. Can you say more about what your relationship with him was like during the process of researching the book? Well, he was definitely not happy when he was informed about the book’s existence. And there was a long period of negotiation, frankly. In the beginning, I figured I was going to write this book without his help — what we call, in the business, a write-around profile. I’ve done plenty of those over my career, and I figured this would just be one more. Over time, as I made more and more calls, he opened up a little bit. And [eventually,] he was generous to sit down with me several times for long interviews and share his thoughts with me. Has he responded to the finished book at all? No. He did tweet about the project, about his decision to participate with it, but he was very clear that he was never going to read it. It’s the same way that I don’t like to watch my TV appearances or podcasts that I’m on. In the book, he’s described as this emblematic Silicon Valley figure. What do you think are the key characteristics that make him representative of the Valley and the tech industry? In the beginning, I think it was that he was young. The Valley really glorifies youth, and he was 19 years old when he started his first startup. You see him going into these meetings with people twice his age, doing deals with telecom operators for his first startup, and no one could get over that this kid was so smart. The other is that he is a once-in-a-generation fundraising talent, and that’s really about being a storyteller. I don’t think it’s an accident that you have essentially a salesman and a fundraiser at the top of the most important AI company today, That ties into one of the questions that runs through the book — this question about Altman’s trustworthiness. Can you say more about the concerns people seem to have about that? To what extent is he a trustworthy figure?  Well, he’s a salesman, so he’s really excellent at getting in a room and convincing people that he can see the future and that he has something in common with them. He gets people to share his vision, which is a rare talent. There are people who’ve watched that happen a bunch of times, who think, “Okay, what he says does not always map to reality,” and have, over time, lost trust in him. This happened both at his first startup and very famously at OpenAI, as well as at Y Combinator. So it is a pattern, but I think it’s a typical critique of people who have the salesman skill set. So it’s not necessarily that he’s particularly untrustworthy, but it’s part-and-parcel of being a salesman leading these important companies. I mean, there also are management issues that are detailed in the book, where he is not great at dealing with conflict, so he’ll basically tell people what they want to hear. That causes a lot of sturm-und-drang in the management ranks, and it’s a pattern. Something like that happened at Loopt, where the executives asked the board to replace him as CEO. And you saw it happen at OpenAI as well. You’ve touched on Altman’s firing, which was also covered in a book excerpt that was published in the Wall Street Journal. One of the striking things to me, looking back at it, was just how complicated everything was — all the different factions within the company, all the people who seemed pro-Altman one day and then anti-Altman the next. When you pull back from the details, what do you think is the bigger significance of that incident? The very big picture is that the nonprofit governance structure is not stable. You can’t really take investment from the likes of Microsoft and a bunch of other investors and then give them absolutely no say whatsoever in the governance of the company. That’s what they have tried to do, but I think what we saw in that firing is how power actually works in the world. When you have stakeholders, even if there’s a piece of paper that says they have no rights, they still have power. And when it became clear that everyone in the company was going to go to Microsoft if they didn’t reinstate Sam Altman, they reinstated Sam Altman. In the book, you take the story up to maybe the end of 2024. There have been all these developments since then, which you’ve continued to report on, including this announcement that actually, they’re not fully converting to a for-profit. How do you think that’s going to affect OpenAI going forward?  It’s going to make it harder for them to raise money, because they basically had to do an about-face. I know that the new structure going forward of the public benefit corporation is not exactly the same as the current structure of the for-profit — it is a little bit more investor friendly, it does clarify some of those things. But overall, what you have is a nonprofit board that controls a for-profit company, and that fundamentally unstable arrangement is what led to the so-called Blip. And I think you would continue to give investors pause, going forward, if they are going to have so little control over their investment. Obviously, OpenAI is still such a capital intensive business. If they have challenges raising more money, is that an existential question for the company? It absolutely could be. My research into Sam suggests that he might well be up to that challenge. But success is not guaranteed. Like you said, there’s a dual perspective in the book that’s partly about who Sam is, and partly about what that says about where AI is going from here. How did that research into his particular story shape the way you now look at these broader debates about AI and society? I went down a rabbit hole in the beginning of the book, [looking] into Sam’s father, Jerry Altman, in part because I thought it was striking how he’d been written out of basically every other thing that had ever been written about Sam Altman. What I found in this research was a very idealistic man who was, from youth, very interested in these public-private partnerships and the power of the government to set policy. He ended up having an impact on the way that affordable housing is still financed to this day. And when I traced Sam’s development, I saw that he has long believed that the government should really be the one that is funding and guiding AI research. In the early days of OpenAI, they went and tried to get the government to invest, as he’s publicly said, and it didn’t work out. But he looks back to these great mid-20th century labs like Xerox PARC and Bell Labs, which are private, but there was a ton of government money running through and supporting that ecosystem. And he says, “That’s the right way to do it.” Now I am watching daily as it seems like the United States is summoning the forces of state capitalism to get behind Sam Altman’s project to build these data centers, both in the United States and now there was just one last week announced in Abu Dhabi. This is a vision he has had for a very, very long time. My sense of the vision, as he presented it earlier, was one where, on the one hand, the government is funding these things and building this infrastructure, and on the other hand, the government is also regulating and guiding AI development for safety purposes. And it now seems like the path being pursued is one where they’re backing away from the safety side and doubling down on the government investment side. Absolutely. Isn’t it fascinating?  You talk about Sam as a political figure, as someone who’s had political ambitions at different times, but also somebody who has what are in many ways traditionally liberal political views while being friends with folks like — at least early on — Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. And he’s done a very good job of navigating the Trump administration. What do you think his politics are right now? I’m not sure his actual politics have changed, they are pretty traditionally progressive politics. Not completely — he’s been critical about things like cancel culture, but in general, he thinks the government is there to take tax revenue and solve problems. His success in the Trump administration has been fascinating because he has been able to find their one area of overlap, which is the desire to build a lot of data centers, and just double down on that and not talk about any other stuff. But this is one area where, in some ways, I feel like Sam Altman has been born for this moment, because he is a deal maker and Trump is a deal maker. Trump respects nothing so much as a big deal with a big price tag on it, and that is what Sam Altman is really great at. You open and close the book not just with Sam’s father, but with his family as a whole. What else is worth highlighting in terms of how his upbringing and family shapes who he is now? Well, you see both the idealism from his father and also the incredible ambition from his mother, who was a doctor, and had four kids and worked as a dermatologist. I think both of these things work together to shape him. They also had a more troubled marriage than I realized going into the book. So I do think that there’s some anxiety there that Sam himself is very upfront about, that he was a pretty anxious person for much of his life, until he did some meditation and had some experiences. And there’s his current family — he just had a baby and got married not too long ago. As a young gay man, growing up in the Midwest, he had to overcome some challenges, and I think those challenges both forged him in high school as a brave person who could stand up and take on a room as a public speaker, but also shaped his optimistic view of the world. Because, on that issue, I paint the scene of his wedding: That’s an unimaginable thing from the early ‘90s, or from the ‘80s when he was born. He’s watched society develop and progress in very tangible ways, and I do think that that has helped solidify his faith in progress. Something that I’ve found writing about AI is that the different visions being presented by people in the field can be so diametrically opposed. You have these wildly utopian visions, but also these warnings that AI could end the world. It gets so hyperbolic that it feels like people are not living in the same reality. Was that a challenge for you in writing the book? Well, I see those two visions — which feel very far apart — actually being part of the same vision, which is that AI is super important, and it’s going to completely transform everything. No one ever talks about the true opposite of that, which is, “Maybe this is going to be a cool enterprise tool, another way to waste time on the internet, and not quite change everything as much as everyone thinks.” So I see the doomers and the boomers feeding off each other and being part of the same sort of hype universe. As a journalist and as a biographer, you don’t necessarily come down on one side or the other — but actually, can you say where you come down on that? Well, I will say that I find myself using it a lot more recently, because it’s gotten a lot better. In the early stages, when I was researching the book, I was definitely a lot more skeptical of its transformative economic power. I’m less skeptical now, because I just use it a lot more.

We may earn a commission from links on this page. Deal pricing and availability subject to change after time of publication.When you’re juggling work on your laptop, managing your calendar on your phone, and storing family vacation photos somewhere in the cloud, it helps to have one service that actually talks to all your devices. That’s what Microsoft 365 Personal aims to do. Right now, StackSocial has a 1-year subscription for $79.99 instead of $99.99, which isn’t massive, but it’s a solid $20 off for something most of us end up using daily. You get access to premium versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, which means no more stripped-down online versions when you’re trying to format a resume or budget spreadsheet. It works across five devices at once—PCs, Macs, iPhones, iPads, and Androids—so it’s flexible if you bounce between gadgets.What’s new here is Microsoft Copilot, the company’s AI add-on baked right into the apps. It helps speed up tasks like summarizing documents or generating ideas in Word and PowerPoint. In practice, it feels a bit like having ChatGPT inside your Microsoft apps—handy if you do a lot of writing, data analysis, or just want to save time. The 1TB of OneDrive storage is enough to store everything from work docs to your personal photo archive, and it syncs across devices. You also get security perks like ransomware detection, file recovery for up to 30 days, and a personal vault for sensitive files. For users in the U.S., there’s also identity theft monitoring through Microsoft Defender.This subscription is designed for one person, and the apps are tied to a single Microsoft account. So if you're looking to share it with family, this isn’t the right plan (look at the Family version instead). It’s also only valid for purchases and use in North America, so international buyers should skip this one. But for someone who wants everything under one umbrella—secure cloud storage, powerful productivity tools, and now AI help baked in—it’s a pretty cohesive package. The value adds up, especially if you’re already deep in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Until last October, Argentinian musical duo Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso were more or less a regional act. Known for their experimental blend of Latin trap, pop, and rap, the pair had a fanbase, but still weren’t cracking more than 3,000 daily streams across services like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube. Within a week, they shot up 4,700%—hitting 222,000 daily streams—according to exclusive data firm Luminate, which powers the Billboard charts. Suddenly Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso were global pop stars.  What changed? On Oct. 4, the pair were featured in a Tiny Desk Concert, part of NPR’s 17-year-old video series featuring musicians performing stripped-down sets behind an office desk in the cramped Washington, D.C. headquarters of the public broadcaster.  In the concert video, the artists play five songs from their debut album Baño Maria, which came out last April. Paco’s raspy voice emerges from underneath a puffy blue trapper hat while Ca7riel sports an over-the-top pout and a vest made of stitched-together heart-shaped plush toys. The pair sing entirely in Spanish, backed by their Argentinian bandmates (sporting shirts screenprinted with their visas) and an American horn section. The duo’s performance quickly took off across the internet. Within five days, it had racked up more than 1.5 million views on YouTube, and hit 11 million in little more than a month. It also reverberated across social media: the NPR Music Instagram post garnering nearly 900,000 likes, and TikToks clips garnered hundreds of thousands of views.  In a year that featured Tiny Desk performances from buzzy stars like Chappell Roan and Sabrina Carpenter, as well as established acts like Chaka Khan and Nelly Furtado, Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s concert was the most-watched of 2024. It currently sits at 36 million views.  That virality translated to an influx of bookings for the duo, including a performance at Coachella in April, and upcoming slots at Glastonbury in June, FujiRock Japan in July, and Lollapalooza and Outside Lands in August. Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s global tour includes sold-out dates at Mexico’s 20,000-capacity Palacio de los Deportes and Chile’s 14,000-seat Movistar Areana—and was previewed by an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon in April.  “Through Tiny Desk, we’ve noticed media approaching us, promoters being very interested in offering their spaces and festivals, and many media outlets opening doors to show us to the world,” says Jonathan Izquierdo, the band’s Spain-based tour manager who began working with the duo shortly after the Tiny Desk Concert debuted. “We’ve managed to sell out summer arena shows in record time and we’re constantly adding new concerts. Promoters are knocking on our doors to get the Tiny Desk effect.” Bobby Carter [Photo: Fenn Paider/courtesy NPR] Tiny Desk, Big Influence The Tiny Desk effect is something Bobby Carter, NPR Tiny Desk host and series producer, has seen firsthand. Carter has been at NPR for 25 years, including the past 11 on the Tiny Desk team. He took the reins when Bob Boilen, the longtime All Songs Considered host who launched Tiny Desk in 2008, retired in 2023.  The series—which now has more than 1,200 videos—began as an internet-first way for Boilen to showcase performances from musicians that were more intimate than what happens in bigger concert venues. The first installment, featuring folk artist Laura Gibson, went up on YouTube. Today, the concerts are posted on the NPR site with a writeup and credits, as well as YouTube, where NPR Music has 11 million followers. NPR Music also clips installments on Instagram, where it has 3 million followers.  In the early days, NPR staff reached out to touring bands to secure bookings. Acts coming through DC could often be cajoled into filming an installment before heading out to their venues for that night’s sound check. Now, musicians come to DC just for the chance to record in NPR’s offices.  “We don’t have to worry about tours anymore,” Carter says. “Labels and artists are willing to come in solely for a Tiny Desk performance. They understand the impact that a really good Tiny Desk concert can have on an artist’s career.” Early on, the stripped-down nature of the Tiny Desk—artists can’t use any audio processing or voice modulation—lent itself to rock, folk, and indie acts. But a 2014 concert with T-Pain, in which the famously autotune-heavy singer unveiled an impressive set of pipes, showed how artists from a broader array of genres could shine behind the Tiny Desk.  “Everyone knows at this point that they’re going to have to do something different in our space,” Carter says. “It’s a bigger ask for hip-hop acts and electronic acts, but most artists now understand how important it can be if they nail it.” Carter highlights rapper Doechii as an artist who overhauled her sound for her Tiny Desk concert in December. Doechii’s all-female backing band used trumpet, saxophone, guitar, and bass to transform songs from her mixtape Alligator Bites Never Heal for the live setting. “If you listen to the recorded version of her music, it’s nothing like what you saw in that Tiny Desk,” Carter says.  Clips of Doechii’s Tiny Desk virtuosity lit up social media, introducing the ‘swamp princess’ to new fans. The concert even inspired a viral parody, with writer-director-comedian Gus Heagary pretending to be an NPR staffer watching the performance.    Reimagining Old Favorites It isn’t just emerging acts that totally revamp their sound for a Tiny Desk opportunity. Established artists like Usher, Justin Timberlake, and Cypress Hill have followed T-Pain’s lead and used NPR’s offices to showcase reimagined versions of some of their most popular songs. When Juvenile recorded his installment in June 2023, he was backed by horns and saxophones, a violin and cello, and John Batiste on melodica. The New Orleans rapper played an acoustic version of “Back That Azz Up” twice at the audience’s request—the first encore in the series’ history.  “I love what has happened with hip hop [on Tiny Desk],” Carter says. He explains that artists now approach the concert with the mindset: ‘I have to really rethink what I’ve been doing for however long I’ve been doing it, and present it in a whole new way.”  Tiny Desk has also helped musicians like Juvenile, gospel artist Marvin Sapp, and percussionist Sheila E to reach new audiences while reminding listeners they’re still making music. “We’re helping artists to re-emerge,” Carter says, “tapping into legacy acts and evergreen artists [to help] breathe new life into their careers.” In many ways, Tiny Desk now occupies a niche once filled by MTV Unplugged—but for the generation that has replaced cable with YouTube and streaming.   “Maybe 10, 15, 20 years ago, all of our favorite artists had this watershed moment in terms of a live performance,” Carter says. “Back in the day it was MTV Unplugged. SNL is still doing their thing. But when you think about the generation now that lives on YouTube, some of these Tiny Desk performances are going to be the milestone that people point to when it comes to live performances.” Building a Diverse Audience When Carter talks about Tiny Desk concerts reaching a new generation of listeners, it’s not conjecture. He notes that the NPR Music YouTube channel’s 11 million subscribers are “as young and diverse as it gets. It’s almost half people of color [and] much younger than the audience that listens to NPR on air, which is an audience NPR has been trying to tap for a long time,” he says.  That diversity informs some of the special series that Tiny Desk produces. The Juvenile video was part of Carter’s second run of concerts recorded for Black Music Month, in June. Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s video was tied to El Tiny, a Latin-focused series that debuts during Latin Heritage Month (from mid September to mid October) and is programmed by Tiny Desk producer and Alt.Latino host AnaMaria Sayer.  Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso’s tour manager, Izquierdo, has worked with artists featured in the series before. He says Tiny Desk is crucial for Latin American artists trying to break through. “I’ve realized that for U.S. radio, Latin music benefits from Tiny Desk,” he says. The Tiny Desk audience’s broad demographics are also increasingly reflected in its broader programming. Bad Bunny’s April installment took his reggaeton-inspired songs from recent album Debi Tirar Mas Fotos to their acoustic roots, using an array of traditional Puerto Rican, Latin American, and Caribbean instruments, such as the cuatro puertorriqueño, tiple, güicharo, and bongos.  “[Our] audience informs a whole lot of what we do,” Carter says. I get so many pointers from YouTube comments like ‘Have you heard of this artist?’ We’re watching all that stuff because it helps us stay sharp.” Tiny Desk heard round the world With a strong global audience, Tiny Desk has been expanding into Asia. In 2023, NPR struck a licensing deal with South Korean Telecom LG U+ and production company Something Special to produce Tiny Desk Korea for television. Last year, NPR inked a deal with the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) to launch Tiny Desk Concerts Japan. “We’re really expanding in terms of global reach,” Carter says.  Here in the States, Carter and Sayer recently launched Tiny Desk Radio, a series that will revisit some of the series’ notable installments, sharing behind-the-scenes stories from their productions and playing the audio from the concerts “Our engineers put a lot of time and effort into making sure that we sound great,” Carter says. “I hear it a lot—people tell me they prefer an artist’s Tiny Desk over anything.” That’s something Ca7riel & Paco Amoroso clearly have on their mind as they navigate the Tiny Desk effect and a new level of recognition (their daily streams haven’t dipped below 50,000 a day since the beginning of the year). The duo released an EP in February, Papota, which features four new songs, plus the recorded versions of their pared-down Tiny Desk performances. They also released a short film that recreates their Tiny Desk performance—this time in a Buenos Aires diner. One of the themes of the EP is the pair wrestling with the implications of their viral success. On the song Impostor, Ca7riel asks “¿Y ahora que vamos hacer?/El tiny desk me jodio” (What do we do now? Tiny Desk fucked me up.) It’s an overstatement, but an acknowledgment that the path they’re now on ran directly through the NPR offices. 

Apple — and almost everybody else — has gotten a slight reprieve as a US court yesterday set aside the Trump tariff tax. But conflict and confusion continue to batter global trade, and while the news will provide a glimmer of relief, it will probably be short-lived. There’s always another dead cat to throw into the flames. Three judges from the US Court of International Trade found that the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which the Trump administration invoked to justify the imposition of these tariffs, does not give the president the authority to levy these taxes on trade. “The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder,” they wrote. The judgement does not impact the 25% “trafficking tariffs” imposed on Mexican and Canadian products and does not prevent the 20% trafficking tariff in place on Chinese goods. It does, however, end the “worldwide and retaliatory” 10-50% tariffs the administration threw at 57 countries. A coalition of small businesses took the case to court, arguing that only Congress has the authority to levy tariffs under the law used by the president’s office. They seem to have prevailed in the argument — at least, so far. It is interesting to note that the administration wanted all the tariff-related lawsuits moved to this particular court, as it felt it would receptive to the administration’s arguments.  This turned out to be an error. What is an emergency? Responding, a White House statement from spokesperson Kush Desai maintained the need for these tariffs, calling US trade deficits a “national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”  But can a trade in cheap consumer goods be seen as an unusual threat after it has been part of US culture for decades? Not according to the US Court of International Trade. The judges say the trade deficit does not meet the Nixon-era International Emergency Economic Powers Act requirement that an emergency can only be triggered by an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”  The journey is by no means over, of course. With the president recently threatening additional tariffs on iPhones made in India (“I have a bit of a problem with my friend, Tim Cook”), the reprieve may be brief.  Desai’s statement said “unelected judges” are not the right people to decide how to handle what he calls a national emergency. “The administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness.”  It seems likely to end at the Supreme Court, even while the administration argues that it should not be bound by the checks and balances that still remain under the US Constitution. For now, an appeal has been lodged with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington.  Where is the off-ramp? Apple, the world’s biggest consumer electronics company, which contributes a fortune to the US treasury and employs tens of thousands of Americans, will likely be relieved the tariffs have been set aside.  The reprieve implies that US consumers won’t need to pay more for their iPhones for a little longer yet and better reflects the reality that even if Apple were to shift iPhone manufacturing to the US, doing so would take years, cost billions, require engineering skills in quantities that do not yet exist in the US, would involve automation rather than large numbers of new jobs, and would be hampered by the availability of components and materials.  For the time being, at least, the judgment is a significant obstacle to the tariff taxes, albeit one that casts another spanner in the works for ongoing international trade talks. However, there is still scope for the administration to impose sector-specific taxes. All the same, “Tim Apple” will be acutely aware that the future will not look like the past, and the company’s $500 billion investment in the US will be part of the company’s future approach to manufacturing and trade. It suggests that while moving iPhone manufacturing to the US may be impractical, moving manufacture of some components and hardware may make sense. It is possible that as Apple and the US administration continue to negotiate, they may yet identify a road that enables both to declare some form of victory. You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.

Women weren’t allowed to officially serve in combat jobs when Emelie Vanasse started her ROTC program at George Washington University. Instead, she used her biology degree to serve as a medical officer — but it still bothered Vanasse to be shut out of something just because she was a woman. “I always felt like, who really has the audacity to tell me that I can’t be in combat arms? I’m resilient, I am tough, I can make decisions in stressful environments,” Vanasse said.By 2015, the Obama administration opened all combat jobs to women, despite a plea from senior leaders in the Marine Corps to keep certain frontline units male only. Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters that, “We cannot afford to cut ourselves off from half the country’s talents and skills.”The policy change meant that women could attend Ranger school, the training ground for the Army Rangers, an elite special operations infantry unit. When Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver became the first women to graduate from the school in 2015, Vanasse taped their photos to her desk and swore she would be next, no matter what it took. She went on to become one of the first women to serve as an Army infantry officer and graduated from Ranger school in 2017. After the Pentagon integrated women into combat jobs, the services developed specific fitness standards for jobs like infantry and armor with equal standards for men and women. Special operations and other highly specialized units require additional qualification courses that are also gender-neutral. To continue past the first day of Ranger school, candidates must pass the Ranger Physical Fitness test, for which there is only one standard. Only the semi-annual fitness tests that service members take, which vary by branch, are scaled for age and gender.Despite that, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has continued to insist that the standards were lowered for combat roles. In a podcast interview in November, Hegseth said, “We’ve changed the standards in putting [women in combat], which means you’ve changed the capability of that unit.” (Despite Hegseth’s remark, many women worked alongside male infantry units in Iraq and Afghanistan, facing the same dangerous conditions.)In the same interview, Hegseth said that he didn’t believe women should serve in combat roles.In March, Hegseth ordered the military services to make the basic fitness standards for all combat jobs gender-neutral. The Army is the first service to comply: Beginning June 1, most combat specialties will require women to meet the male standard for basic physical fitness, something most women serving in active-duty combat roles are already able to do.Vanasse told Noel King on Today, Explained what it was like to attend Ranger School at a time when some men didn’t want to see a woman in the ranks. What is Ranger School?I went to Ranger School on January 1, 2017. I woke up at 3 am that day in Fort Benning, Georgia, shaved my head, a quarter-inch all the way around, just like the men. Took my last hot shower, choked down some French toast, and then I drove to Camp Rogers, and I remember being very acutely aware of the pain that the school would inflict, both physically and mentally. I was also very aware that there was kind of half of this population of objective graders that just kind of hated my guts for even showing up. They hated you for showing up because you’re a woman?Back in 2016 and 2017, it was so new to have women in Ranger School. I used to think, I don’t have to just be good, I have to be lucky. I have to get a grader who is willing to let a woman pass. I had dark times at that school. I tasted real failure. I sat under a poncho in torrential rain and I shivered so hard my whole body cramped. I put on a ruck that weighed 130 pounds and I crawled up a mountain on my hands and knees. I hallucinated a donut shop in the middle of the Appalachian Mountains and I cried one morning when someone told me I had to get out of my sleeping bag. But I think all of those experiences are quintessential Ranger School experiences. They’re what everyone goes through there. And I think the point of the school is that failure, that suffering, it’s not inherently bad, right? In a way, I like to think Ranger School was the most simplistic form of gender integration that ever could have happened because if I was contributing to the team, there was no individual out there that really had the luxury of disliking or excluding me. When you wanted to give up, what did you tell yourself? What was going through your head? I don’t think I ever considered quitting Ranger School. I just knew that it was something that I could get through and had the confidence to continue. I had a thought going in of What could be so bad that would make me quit? and the answer that I found throughout the school was, Nothing. Did you ever feel like they had lowered the standards for you compared to the men who were alongside you?No. Never. I did the same thing that the men did. I did the same Ranger physical fitness test that all the men took. I ran five miles in 40 minutes. I did 49 pushups, 59 situps, six pullups. I rucked 12 miles in three hours with a 45-pound ruck. I climbed the same mountains. I carried the same stuff. I carried the same exact packing list they did, plus 250 tampons for some reason. At no point were the standards lowered for me. Whose idea was it for you to carry 250 tampons? It was not mine! It was a misguided effort to have everyone very prepared for the first women coming through Ranger School.In Ranger School, there’s only one standard for the fitness test. Everybody has to meet it, and that allows you to get out of Ranger School and say, “Look, fellas, I took the same test as the men and I passed.” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is saying that Army combat jobs should only have one standard of fitness for both men and women. And there’s part of me that thinks: Doesn’t that allow the women who meet the standards to be like, look, We met the same standards as the men. Nothing suspicious here, guys. I think gender-neutral standards for combat arms are very important. It should not be discounted how important physical fitness is for combat arms. I think there’s nuance in determining what is a standard that is useful for combat arms, right? But it’s an important thing. And there have been gender-neutral standards for combat arms. In things like Infantry Basic Officer Leader Course, which is the initial basic training for officers going into the infantry, there are gender-neutral standards that you have to meet: You have to run five miles in 40 minutes, you have to do a 12-mile ruck. All of those standards have remained the same. Pete Hegseth is specifically referring to the Army Combat Physical Fitness test, and to a certain extent I agree, it should be gender-neutral for combat arms. But I think there’s nuance in determining what exactly combat arms entails physically.Secretary Hegseth has a lot to say about women, and sometimes he says it directly and sometimes he alludes to it. What he often does is he talks about lethality as something that is critically important for the military. He says the Army in particular needs more of it, but he never really defines what he means by lethality. What is the definition as you understand it? There’s a component of lethality that is physical fitness and it should not be discounted. But lethality extends far beyond that, right? It’s tactical skills, it’s decision-making, it’s leadership, it’s grit, it’s the ability to build trust and instill purpose and a group of people. It’s how quick a fire team in my platoon can react to contact. How well my SAW [Squad Automatic Weapon] gunner can shoot, how quickly I can employ and integrate combat assets, how fast I can maneuver a squad. All of those things take physical fitness, but they certainly take more than just physical fitness. There’s more to lethality than just how fast you can run and how many pushups you can do.To an average civilian like myself, I hear lethality and I think of the dictionary definition, the ability to kill. Does this definition of lethality involve the ability, physically and emotionally and psychologically, to kill another person? Absolutely. And so when Secretary Hegseth casts doubt on the ability of women to be as lethal as men, do you think there’s some stuff baked in there that maybe gets to his idea of what women are willing and able to do?Yes, possibly. I think the [secretary’s] message is pretty clear. According to him, the women in combat arms achieved success because the standards were lowered for them. We were never accommodated and the standards were never lowered.What’s your response, then, to hearing the Secretary of Defense say women don’t belong in combat? It makes me irate, to be honest. Like, it’s just a complete discounting of all of the accomplishments of the women that came before us. Do you think that if Secretary Hegseth could take a look at what you did in Ranger School, and he could hear from you that there were no second chances, there were no excuses, there was no babying, the men didn’t treat you nicer just because you were a woman, do you think he’d change his mind about women serving in combat? I’d like to think he would, but I’ve met plenty of people whose minds couldn’t be changed by reality. I’d love it if he went to Ranger School. He has a lot of opinions about Ranger School for someone who does not have his Ranger tab.What is a Ranger tab, for civilians? A Ranger tab is what you receive upon graduating Ranger School, which means you have passed all three phases and you are now Ranger-qualified in the military.You have that. And the Secretary of Defense doesn’t. He does not, though he has a lot of opinions about Ranger School.See More:

Yann LeCun, Meta's chief AI scientist, talks about AI regulation. FABRICE COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images 2025-05-31T21:40:40Z Save Saved Read in app This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Yann LeCun, Meta's chief AI scientist, has some ideas on open-source regulation. LeCun thinks open-source AI should be an international resource. Countries must ensure they are not "impeding open source platforms," he said. AI has surged to the top of the diplomatic agenda in the past couple of years.And one of the leading topics of discussion among researchers, tech executives, and policymakers is how open-source models — which are free for anyone to use and modify — should be governed.At the AI Action Summit in Paris earlier this year, Meta's chief AI scientist, Yann LeCun, said he'd like to see a world in which "we'll train our open-source platforms in a distributed fashion with data centers spread across the world." Each will have access to its own data sources, which they may keep confidential, but "they will contribute to a common model that will essentially constitute a repository of all human knowledge," he said.This repository will be larger than what any one entity, whether a country or company, can handle. India, for example, may not give away a body of knowledge comprising all the languages and dialects spoken there to a tech company. However, "they would be happy to contribute to training a big model, if they can, that is open source," he said.To achieve that vision, though, "countries have to be really careful with regulations and legislation." He said countries shouldn't impede open-source, but favor it.Even for closed-loop systems, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said international regulation is critical."I think there will come a time in the not-so-distant future, like we're not talking decades and decades from now, where frontier AI systems are capable of causing significant global harm," Altman said on the All-In podcast last year.Altman believes those systems will have a "negative impact way beyond the realm of one country" and said he wanted to see them regulated by "an international agency looking at the most powerful systems and ensuring reasonable safety testing." Recommended video

William Morris Biscuit Set. All images courtesy of Ella Hawkins, shared with permission Dr. Ella Hawkins Reimagines Ancient Artifacts and Prized Objects as Edible Replicas May 31, 2025 Grace Ebert Academic research is notoriously niche and often opaque, but Dr. Ella Hawkins has found a crowd-pleasing way to share her studies. The Birmingham-based artist and design historian translates her interests in Shakespeare performance, costume, and matieral culture into edible replicas. Hawkins bakes batches of cookies that she tops with royal icing. Decorating takes a scholarly turn, as she uses tiny paintbrushes and a mini projector to help trace imagery of William Morris’ ornate floral motifs or coastal scenes from English delftware. Rendering a design on a single cookie can take anywhere between two and four hours, depending on the complexity. Unsurprisingly, minuscule calligraphy and portraits are most demanding. Ancient Greek Pottery Sherds Hawkins first merged baking and her research about a decade ago while studying undergraduate costume design at the University of Warwick. She decided to bake cupcakes based on Shakespeare productions that her class examined. “It felt like a fun way to look back at all the different design styles we’d covered through the year,” she tells Colossal, adding: I carried on decorating cakes and cookies based on costume design through my PhD (mainly as goodies to give out during talks, or as gifts for designers that I interviewed), then branched out and spent lots of time doing cookie versions of other artefacts to keep busy during the pandemic. She has since published an academic book on the topic and is a senior lecturer at Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama. But she also continues to translate artifacts and prized objects held within museum collections into delicious canvases. There’s a set made in collaboration with Milton’s Cottage, a museum in the country house where John Milton finished his epic Paradise Lost. Anchored by a delicately crosshatched portrait evoking that of the frontispiece, the collection contains typographic titles and signs that appear straight from a 17th-century book. Delftware Tiles Hawkins ventures farther back in history to ancient Greece with a collection of pottery sherds inspired by objects within the Ashmolean Museum. With a bowed surface to mimic a vessel’s curvature, the irregular shapes feature fragments of various motifs and figures to which she applied a sgraffito technique, a Renaissance method of scratching a surface to reveal the layer below. The weathered appearance is the result of blotting a base of pale brown-grey before using a scribe tool to scratch and crack the royal icing coating the surface. She then lined these etchings with a mix of vodka and black food coloring to mimic dirt and wear. (It’s worth taking a look at this process video.) Other than a select few preserved for talks and events, Hawkins assures us that the rest of her cookies are eaten. Find more of her work on her website and Instagram. Medieval Tiles, inspired by The Tristram Tiles, Chertsey, Surrey, England (c. 1260s-70s) Milton’s Cottage Biscuit Set developed in collaboration with Milton’s Cottage Outlander Biscuit Set Elizabethan Gauntlet Biscuit Set Next article