ReportWire

Tag: Jeff Bezos

  • Washington Post becomes second major US newspaper this week to not endorse a presidential candidate

    Washington Post becomes second major US newspaper this week to not endorse a presidential candidate

    [ad_1]

    Less than two weeks before Election Day, The Washington Post said Friday it would not endorse a candidate for president in this year’s tightly contested race and would avoid doing so in the future — a decision immediately condemned by a former executive editor but one that the current publisher insisted was “consistent with the values the Post has always stood for.”

    In an article posted on the front of its website, the Post — reporting on its own inner workings — also quoted unidentified sources within the publication as saying that an endorsement of Kamala Harris over Donald Trump had been written but not published. Those sources told the Post reporters that the company’s owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, made the decision.

    The Post’s publisher, Will Lewis, wrote in a column that the decision was actually a return to a tradition the paper had years ago of not endorsing candidates. He said it reflected the paper’s faith in “our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.”

    “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values the Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

    There was no immediate reaction from either campaign.

    The Post isn’t the only one going this route

    Lewis cited the Post’s history in writing about the decision. According to him, the Post only started regularly endorsing candidates for president when it backed Jimmy Carter in 1976.

    The Post said the decision had “roiled” many on the opinion staff, which operates independently from the Post’s newsroom staff — what is known commonly in the industry as a “church-state separation” between those who report the news and those who write opinion.

    The Post’s move comes the same week that the Los Angeles Times announced a similar decision, which triggered the resignations of its editorial page editor and two other members of the editorial board. In that instance, the Times’ owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, insisted he had not censored the editorial board, which had planned to endorse Harris.

    “As an owner, I’m on the editorial board and I shared with our editors that maybe this year we have a column, a page, two pages, if we want, of all the pros and all the cons and let the readers decide,” Soon-Shiong said in an interview Thursday with Spectrum News. He said he feared endorsing a candidate would add to the country’s division.

    In August, the newly rebranded Minnesota Star Tribune also announced it would no longer endorse candidates. The paper is owned by billionaire Glen Taylor, who also owns the Minnesota Timberwolves. Its publisher is Steve Grove, who was economic development commissioner in the administration of Gov. Tim Walz — Harris’ running mate.

    Many American newspapers have been dropping editorial endorsements in recent years. That is in large part because at a time readership has been dwindling, they don’t want to give remaining subscribers and news consumers a reason to get mad and cancel their subscriptions.

    Martin Baron, the Post’s executive editor from 2012 to 2021, was in charge of its newsroom in 2013 when Bezos bought the paper. Baron immediately condemned the decision on X Friday, saying it empowers Trump to further intimidate Bezos and others. “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” he wrote. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    It comes at a time when newspapers are struggling

    The decisions come at a fraught time for American media, newspapers in particular. Local news is drying up in many places. And after being upended by the economics of the internet and drastically evolving reader habits, the top “legacy media” — including the Post, The New York Times and others — have been struggling to keep up with a changing landscape.

    Nowhere is this more true, perhaps, than in the political arena. The candidates this year have been rejecting some mainstream interviews in favor of podcasts and other niche programming, and many news organizations are vigorously ramping up to combat misinformation in near-real time on Election Day, Nov. 5.

    Trump, who for years called the media covering him “the enemy of the people,” has returned to such rhetoric in recent days. His vitriol in particular is aimed at CBS, whose broadcast license he has threatened to revoke.

    On Thursday, at a rally in Arizona, he returned to the language explicitly once more.

    “They’re the enemy of the people. They are,” Trump said to a jeering crowd. “I’ve been asked not to say that. I don’t want to say it. And some day they’re not going to be the enemy of the people, I hope.”

    The Post endorsed Trump’s Democratic rivals in 2016 and 2020, and Trump has often denounced critical coverage by the paper. On Friday, after Trump spoke in Austin, he greeted executives from Blue Origin, Bezos’ space exploration company. Trump spoke briefly with Blue Origin’s CEO and vice president of government relations. Some critics have publicly speculated that Bezos wants to avoid antagonizing Trump.

    For the Post, the decision is certain to generate debate beyond the news cycle. It seemed to acknowledge this with a note from the paper’s letters and community editor at the top of the comments section on the publisher’s column: “I know many of you will have strong feelings about this note from Mr. Lewis.”

    Indeed, by midafternoon, the column had elicited more than 7,000 comments, many critical. Said one, riffing off the Post’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”: “Time to change your slogan to `Democracy dies in broad daylight.’”

    ___

    Steve Karnowski in Minnesota and Jonathan J. Cooper in Arizona contributed to this report. Ted Anthony, director of new storytelling and newsroom innovation at the AP, can be followed at http://x.com/anthonyted

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports

    Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports

    [ad_1]

    The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building in Washington, D.C., June 5, 2024.

    Andrew Harnik | Getty Images

    The Washington Post said Friday that it will not endorse a candidate in the presidential election this year — or ever again — breaking decades of tradition and sparking immediate criticism of the decision.

    But the newspaper also published an article by two staff reporters revealing that editorial page staffers had drafted an endorsement of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over GOP nominee Donald Trump in the election.

    “The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos,” the article said, citing two sources briefed on the events.

    Trump, while president, had been critical of the billionaire Bezos and the Post, which he purchased in 2013.

    The newspaper in 2016 and again in 2020 endorsed Trump’s election opponents, Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, in editorials that condemned the Republican in blunt terms.

    In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure … to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos.

    The Post since 1976 had regularly endorsed candidates for president, except for the 1988 race. All those endorsements had been for Democrats.

    In a statement to CNBC, when asked about Bezos’ purported role in killing the endorsement, Post chief communications officer Kathy Baird said, “This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full.”

    The Post on Friday evening published a third article, signed by opinion columnists for the newspaper, who said, “The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake.”

    “It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 218 years,” the column said. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.”

    CNBC has requested comment from Amazon, where Bezos remains the largest shareholder.

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos arrives for his meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the UK diplomatic residence in New York City, Sept. 20, 2021.

    Michael M. Santiago | Getty Images News | Getty Images

    Post publisher and chief executive Will Lewis, in an article published online explaining the decision, wrote, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.”

    “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote.

    “We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” he wrote.

    “That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”

    Seven of the 13 paragraphs of Lewis’ article either quoted at length or referred to Post Editorial Board statements in 1960 and 1972 explaining the paper’s rationale for not endorsing presidential candidates in those years, which included its identity as “an independent newspaper.”

    Lewis noted that the paper had endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976 “for understandable reasons at the times” — which he did not identify.

    “But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis wrote.

    “Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” he wrote. “And that is what we are and will be.”

    Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan, a member of the paper’s opinions section, resigned following the decision, multiple news outlets reported.

    More than 10,000 reader comments were posted on Lewis’ article, many of them blasting the Post for its decision and saying they were canceling their subscriptions.

    “The most consequential election in our country, a choice between Fascism and Democracy, and you sit out? Cowards. Unethical, fearful cowards,” wrote one comment. “Oh, and by the way, I’m canceling my subscription, because you are putting business ahead of ethics and morals.”

    The announcement came days after Mariel Garza, the head of The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial board, resigned in protest after that paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, decided against running a presidential endorsement.

    “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

    Soon-Shiong, like Bezos, is a billionaire.

    Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post, called that paper’s decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

    ″@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” Baron wrote. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

    The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents the newspaper’s staff, in a statement posted on the social media site X said it was “deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make a decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election.”

    “The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial,” the Guild said in the statement, which noted the paper’s reporting about Bezos’ role in the decision.

    “We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the Guild said. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

    Read more CNBC politics coverage

    Former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose stories about the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration won the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, in a statement said, “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

    “Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process,” Woodward and Bernstein said.

    Post columnist Karen Attiah, in a post on the social media site Threads, wrote, “Today has been an absolute stab in the back.”

    “What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line to call out threats to human rights and democracy,” Attiah wrote.

    Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, in his own tweet on the news wrote, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”

    Trump in August told Fox Business News that Bezos called him after the Republican narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in July at a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

    “He was very nice even though he owns The Washington Post,” Trump said of Bezos.

    Bezos last posted on X on July 13, hours after the assassination attempt.

    “Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight,” Bezos wrote in that tweet. “So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families.”

    Trump on Friday met in Austin, Texas, with executives from the Bezos-owned space exploration company Blue Origin, among them CEO David Limp, the Associated Press reported

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Washington Post declines to endorse a presidential candidate, angering staffers and subscribers

    Washington Post declines to endorse a presidential candidate, angering staffers and subscribers

    [ad_1]

    The Washington Post’s publisher, William Lewis, on Friday said the newspaper would not endorse a presidential candidate in this year’s election or in future elections, a stance that sparked outrage from and some of its current and former employees, as well as subscribers.  

    “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote in a note published on the newspaper’s website.

    The decision follows a move by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong to block that newspaper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, which has sparked the resignation of the editorials editor, Mariel Garza, followed by the resignations of two other members of its editorial board.

    Both Soon-Shiong and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos are billionaires who made their fortunes outside the media industry. 

    Former WaPo editor objects

    Media observers decried the decisions, while some readers of the newspapers said they are canceling their subscriptions.

    “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” wrote Marty Baron, the former editor of the Washington Post, who retired in 2021, on X Friday about the Washington Post’s decision. Former President Donald Trump “will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others). Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

    The Washington Post Guild, which represents roughly 1,000 journalists and other workers at the media company, expressed concern that corporate management had interfered with the paper’s editorial decision-making process.

    “According to our reporters and Guild members, an endorsement for Harris was already drafted, and the decision to not to publish was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos,” the labor group said In a statement posted on X. “We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. The decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

    Robert Kagan, an editor at large for the Washington Post, resigned from the editorial board as result of the decision not to endorse a candidate, according to NPR’s David Folkenflik. “Kagan has been a persistent conservative critic of Trump, tying him to an autocratic tradition,” Folkenflik wrote on X. “Uniformly outraged response from staff.”

    Some readers of both the Post and the Los Angeles Times said they planned to cancel their subscriptions, with some posting images of their subscription cancellation notices. 

    “Great, another billionaire protecting his own self-interest instead of the country’s. Nice knowing you, @washingtonpost⁩. Subscription canceled,” wrote Hollywood director Paul Feig on X. 

    Zach Wahls, an Iowa state senator and a Democrat, wrote, “I am a strong believer in paying for serious, high-quality journalism, and that is exactly why I am canceling my @washingtonpost subscription over this timid, cowardly decision that could not come at a worse possible — or more revealing — time.”

    The vast majority of reader responses on social media were negative, with many saying they had canceled their subscriptions, although a few expressed support for the Washington Post. “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of the Washington Post,” one reader wrote.

    Lewis didn’t immediately return a request for comment, nor did Los Angeles Times executive editor Terry Tang. Washington Post Executive Matt Murray also did not respond to an email requesting comment. 

    Los Angeles Times resignations

    On Thursday, Los Angeles Times veteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein announced their resignations one day after the editorial page editor Garza left in protest over Soon-Shiong’s decision not to endorse a candidate.

    Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing, said in a statement shared with the Columbia Journalism Review that he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision not to endorse Harris.

    “I recognize that it is the owner’s decision to make,” he wrote. “But it hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism — respect for the truth and reverence for democracy.”

    Garza said the board had intended to endorse Harris and that she had drafted the outline of a proposed editorial, but that was blocked by Soon-Shiong.

    An editorial board operates separately from the newsroom, and its writers’ job is to present an issue and then take a side and lay out arguments to defend it.

    contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mogul sues real estate firm for allegedly hiding Jeff Bezos was purchaser of his $79 million home

    Mogul sues real estate firm for allegedly hiding Jeff Bezos was purchaser of his $79 million home

    [ad_1]

    Everyone wants to get top dollar in a real estate sale — and that even goes for the extremely rich. 

    Businessman Leo Kryss is suing real estate company Douglas Elliman over the $79 million sale of his Florida mansion, a 7-bedroom, 11.5-bathroom home located in what his lawsuit calls “the most prestigious and exclusive area in Miami, Indian Creek Village.”

    In his lawsuit, Kryss claims he asked Douglas Elliman CEO Jay Parker point-blank if Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was behind the purchase. Parker allegedly “misleadingly assured Kryss that Bezos was not behind the offer and was not the purchaser,” according to the lawsuit, filed in July in the circuit court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County. 

    Parker also allegedly asserted that the buyer would not pay more than $79 million for the home, versus the $85 million listing price, the lawsuit claims.

    Because of the assurance, Kryss allegedly agreed to discount the property’s price by $6 million, settling on the sale price of $79 million.

    “But for these misrepresentations and in reliance upon [Parker’s] duties to deal honestly, fairly, and with due care towards T.A.M., Kryss would not have reduced the purchase price or sold the home for $79,000,000,” the lawsuit claims. T.A.M. refers to Tendencia Asset Management, the company that negotiated on behalf of Kryss. 

    Bezos is the world’s second richest person behind Elon Musk, with a net worth of $202 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. He didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Douglas Elliman declined to comment on the lawsuit. 

    A discount of $6 million represents about 0.006% of Bezos’s net worth. 

    Leo Kryss, the co-founder of Brazilian toy and electronics company Tectoy, bought the property at 12 Indian Creek Island Road for $28 million in 2014, according to the Wall Street Journal, which earlier reported on the lawsuit. The waterfront estate, built in 2000, is located in a neighborhood known as a haven for the ultra-wealthy, with neighbors including Ivanka Trump and Tom Brady, the Miami Herald notes.

    It’s common for high-end properties to be bought by trusts or business partnerships on behalf of wealthy individuals, whose names might not be known to the real estate agents representing them. The lawsuit notes that a trust completed the purchase of Kryss’ mansion on behalf of Bezos. 

    Kryss speculated that Bezos might be behind the offer on his home because the Amazon founder had previously acquired 11 Indian Creek Island Road, a property adjacent to his mansion, the lawsuit notes.

    It added, “Kryss believed that it was highly material to his negotiations and his decision on the ultimate sales price of the home to know whether Bezos was interested in his home and if Bezos was attempting to anonymously acquire the home in order to assemble it with the adjoining property that Bezos already purchased.”

    Kryss’ property “would be significantly more valuable to Bezos than to other potential buyers,” the lawsuit claims. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos’ $80M Gulfstream G700: What Does This Purchase Say About Billionaire Spending?

    Jeff Bezos’ $80M Gulfstream G700: What Does This Purchase Say About Billionaire Spending?

    [ad_1]

    Jeff Bezos’ $80M Gulfstream G700: What Does This Purchase Say About Billionaire Spending?

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos recently purchased a new $80 million ride: a Gulfstream G700. This advanced private jet – boasting cutting-edge tech, a spacious cabin, and exceptional range – adds yet another item to the billionaire’s list of millions-worth purchases.

    Don’t Miss:

    Among this collection are a megayacht worth around $500 million, a $42 million clock in the mountains of West Texas, a $65 million Gulfstream G-650ER (that’s another private jet), and a $23 million mansion – just some of the extravagant purchases Bezos can afford.

    Billionaires like Bezos have long been associated with lavish lifestyles – with private jets, superyachts, and sprawling real estate portfolios. According to Business Insider, billionaires can typically afford to spend around $80 million per year.

    Trending: A billion-dollar investment strategy with minimums as low as $10 —you can become part of the next big real estate boom today.

    With a net worth of around $194 billion, the Gulfstream purchase is only 0.04% of Bezos’ wealth. For many, these purchases demonstrate how wide the economic divide is.

    Billionaire spending habits frequently gain public attention because they show how significant the disparity between the top 1% and average citizens is. While many Americans struggle to afford basic amenities, don’t have enough saved for retirement, and face increasing financial uncertainty, billionaires like Bezos can afford to spend millions on luxury items.

    Critics argue that billionaire spending highlights the wealth gap in the U.S., where the top 1% hold nearly as much wealth as the bottom 90%. Others defend billionaire spending, claiming it stimulates economic growth and job creation.

    See Also: Amid the ongoing EV revolution, previously overlooked low-income communities now harbor a huge investment opportunity at just $500.

    Bezos’s jet purchase may seem extreme, but it’s part of a larger pattern of wealth distribution. Billionaires invest heavily in purchases like yachts, islands, and art. In 2021, yacht sales increased as billionaires sought privacy and security during the pandemic. The art market also surged, with global sales reaching $64.1 billion in 2019.

    Luxury goods industries thrive when high-net-worth individuals seek out these items and make continual purchases. The G700 purchase alone supports jobs, from engineers and manufacturers to pilots and crew.

    That’s not to say that billionaires only spend their money on lavish lifestyles, though. Many billionaires are known for their philanthropic efforts. Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Lynn Schusterman give away 20% or more of their wealth, while others, like Bezos and Elon Musk, have given away less than 1% of their wealth.

    Despite contributing less than others, Bezos has still made significant charitable contributions. He has pledged $10 billion to fight climate change. However, extravagant purchases like jets and yachts often overshadow these charitable efforts.

    Trending: This billion-dollar fund has invested in the next big real estate boom, here’s how you can join for $10.

    For those nearing retirement, the spectacle of billionaire spending can feel distant from your financial reality. However, it highlights important economic trends and questions about wealth distribution that may impact policies affecting retirement, taxation, and financial security.

    That being said, talking with a financial advisor can help you navigate your important financial decisions, focusing on the purchases and choices within your grasp and helping you secure your financial future.

    Read Next:

    “ACTIVE INVESTORS’ SECRET WEAPON” Supercharge Your Stock Market Game with the #1 “news & everything else” trading tool: Benzinga Pro – Click here to start Your 14-Day Trial Now!

    Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?

    This article Jeff Bezos’ $80M Gulfstream G700: What Does This Purchase Say About Billionaire Spending? originally appeared on Benzinga.com

    © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill Gates Is Betting on Nuclear Fission and Fusion to Solve the Climate Crisis

    Bill Gates Is Betting on Nuclear Fission and Fusion to Solve the Climate Crisis

    [ad_1]

    The Microsoft founder is ramping up his investments in nuclear power. Halil Sagirkaya/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Despite the decades-long efforts of scientists around the world, the commercialization of nuclear fusion technology has not yet been achieved on Earth. However, Bill Gates, who has invested significantly in both nuclear fission and fusion startups, is betting on cutting-edge tech to provide a promising path toward green energy. “I’m a big believer that nuclear energy can help us solve the climate problem,” the Microsoft (MSFT) co-founder told The Verge in a wide-ranging interview published today (Sept. 5).

    Gates has long been outspoken about his adventurous approach to climate technology. Such sentiments have become more pertinent in recent years as concerns about Big Tech’s energy use proliferate. The energy consumption of data centers that power A.I. computing, for example, is expected to potentially double to take up 9 percent of the nation’s electricity by 2030, according to the Electric Power Research Institute.

    According to Gates, A.I. data centers will actually generate a less than 10 percent increase in energy use. Even so, Big Tech is exploring clean energy sources and will pioneer fission and fusion power “to help bootstrap that green energy generation,” he said. Microsoft, for example, last year signed a power purchase agreement with Helion Energy, a nuclear fusion company backed by Sam Altman, to buy electricity from the startup in 2028.

    Lauded for its potential to provide mass amounts of affordable and clean energy, nuclear fusion is the same process that powers the sun and stars. It occurs when two light atoms combine to form a heavier one while releasing energy, a reaction that must take place in extremely high temperatures of around 10 million degrees Celsius, according to the International Atomic Energy.

    Although the process has yet to be commercially harnessed, nuclear fusion technology has received an outburst of financial support in recent years. Of $7.1 billion in total funding since 1992, the sector received $900 million last year, according to a recent report from the Fusion Industry Association, which noted that 89 percent of private fusion companies believe the technology will be operational by the end of the 2030s.

    The report identified 45 companies worldwide working to commercialize nuclear fusion. Of those startups, five are backed by Gates via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, his climate-focused investment fund. The billionaire has invested in the likes of Zap Energy, which is hoping to build a fusion power plant in the next few years, and Type One Energy, which uses magnets to help fuse atoms. Both Gates and Amazon (AMZN)’s Jeff Bezos have supported Commonwealth Fusion Systems, another startup aiming to make the commercialization of fusion power a possibility in the near future.

    Despite skepticism over whether nuclear fusion—which doesn’t emit greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide—will actually come to fruition in the next few years or decades, Gates said he remains optimistic. “Although their timeframes are further out, I think the role of fusion over time will be very, very critical,” he told The Verge.

    The billionaire has also invested in modern forms of nuclear fission energy, which produces energy when atoms are split apart. Gates is attempting to develop a cheaper form of fission via $1 billion worth of investments into TerraPower, a startup that recently broke ground on a nuclear power plant site in Kemmerer, Wyo. and aims to develop more affordable and safer forms of fission by using water to cool reactors instead of sodium. “People are appropriately skeptical because it’s never been done,” Gates told The Verge. “But they’ll get to see as we build that plant, and if so, it can make a contribution.”

    Gates isn’t alone in his embrace of all things nuclear. Bezos, too, has become a prominent investor in fusion technology, having invested in Canadian startup General Fusion’s dreams of developing a pilot plant. OpenAI’s Altman has poured capital and time into the field as well, backing and chairing both Helion Energy and the nuclear energy startup Oklo.

    Bill Gates Is Betting on Nuclear Fission and Fusion to Solve the Climate Crisis

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Nvidia’s Billion-Dollar A.I. Pitch: How the Chip Giant Ramps Up Startup Bets

    Nvidia’s Billion-Dollar A.I. Pitch: How the Chip Giant Ramps Up Startup Bets

    [ad_1]

    Jensen Huang prepares to throw out the ceremonial first pitch before the game between the San Francisco Giants and the Arizona Diamondbacks at Oracle Park on Sept. 03, 2024 in San Francisco. Lachlan Cunningham/Getty Images

    There’s no question that Nvidia (NVDA) is one of the biggest winners of the A.I. boom so far. Funneled by an insatiable demand for its graphics processing units (GPUs), the chipmaker’s stock has skyrocketed by more than 450 percent since early 2023. As Nvidia’s market cap and revenue soar, so does the pace of its investing in A.I. startups. More than half of the company’s startup investments since 2005 took place in the past two years.

    The value of the company’s startup investments reportedly totaled more than $1.5 billion at the beginning of 2024, a significant jump from the $300 million a year prior. The chipmaker has participated in more than ten $100 million-plus funding rounds for A.I. startups in 2024 alone, according to data from Crunchbase, and has backed more than 50 startups since 2023. That’s not to mention a flurry of activity from the company’s venture capital arm NVentures, which separately made 26 investments in 2023 and 2024.

    Nvidia’s seemingly unflappable upward trajectory took a hit yesterday (Sept. 3) after reports surfaced that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice as part of an antitrust probe. The company’s stock dropped nearly 10 percent, shaving $279 billion off its market cap, which currently stands at $2.6 trillion.

    But its falling stock price doesn’t mean the company is slowing down in its startup department. In addition to eyeing an investment in an upcoming funding round in ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, Nvidia yesterday unveiled its participation in a more than $100 million funding round for the Tokyo-based Sakana AI, a company that specializes in accessible A.I. models trained on small datasets.

    We invest in these companies because they’re incredible at what they do,” Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang told Wired earlier this year. “These are some of the best minds in the world.”

    From companies specializing in humanoid robots to autonomous vehicles, here’s a look at some of Nvidia’s most significant startup investments:

    Perplexity AI

    Huang hasn’t been shy about his love for Perplexity AI, the A.I.-powered search engine positioned as a competitor to the likes of Google. The Nvidia CEO uses the startup’s tool nearly every day for research, according to Huang’s interview with Wired.

    He has also put his money where his mouth is, with Nvidia partaking in a $62.7 million funding round for Perplexity AI in April that valued the startup at $1 billion. Led by investor Daniel Gross, the round included participants like Amazon (AMZN)’s Jeff Bezos. It wasn’t the first time Nvidia has backed the company—the chipmaker also invested in Perplexity AI during another funding round in January that valued the startup at $73.6 million.

    Hugging Face

    Hugging Face, a startup providing open-source A.I. developer platforms, has long had close ties to Nvidia. The chipmaker participated in a $235 million funding round in Hugging Face in August 2023 that valued the company at $4.5 billion. Other corporate investors participating in the round included Google, Amazon, Intel, AMD and Salesforce.

    Hugging Face has previously included Nvidia hardware among its shared resources. In May, it launched a new program that donated $10 million worth of free, shared Nvidia GPUs to be used by A.I. developers.

    Adept AI

    Unlike more well-known A.I. assistants from companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic, Adept AI’s primary product doesn’t center around text or image generation. Instead, the startup is focused on building an assistant that can complete tasks on a computer, such as generating a report or navigating the web, and is able to use software tools. Nvidia is on board, having participated in a $350 million funding round in March 2023.

    Databricks

    After receiving a giant valuation of $43 billion last fall, Databricks became one of the world’s most valuable A.I. companies. The data analytics software provider unsurprisingly uses Nvidia’s GPUs and has been backed by the chipmaker alongside other investors like Andreessen Horowitz and Capital One Ventures, all of whom participated in a $500 million funding round in September 2023. “Databricks is doing incredible work with Nvidia technology to accelerate data processing and generative A.I. models,” said Huang in a statement at the time.

    Cohere

    A formidable opponent to OpenAI and Anthropic, the Canadian startup Cohere specializes in A.I. models for enterprises. The company’s growth over the past five years has attracted backers such as Nvidia, Salesforce and Cisco, which funded Cohere during a round held in July. Nvidia also took part in a May 2023 funding round that brought in some $270 million for the startup.

    Mistral AI

    Mistral AI is a French startup focusing on developing open-source A.I. models. It was founded by former Google DeepMind and Meta employees in April 2023. Nvidia has participated in two of the startup’s fundraising rounds, a $518 million round in June and a $426 million round in December 2023. The collaboration between the two companies doesn’t end there—in July, Nvidia and Mistral AI jointly released a small and accessible language model for developers.

    Figure

    Huang has long reiterated his belief that A.I.-powered robots able to work among humans will constitute the next wave of technology. It is, therefore, no surprise that Nvidia is a backer of Figure, a startup developing humanoid robots for use in warehouses, transportation and retail. Nvidia reportedly funneled $50 million towards the company during a February funding round that raised a total of $675 million and included participants like Bezos and Microsoft.

    Scale AI

    To properly train A.I. tools like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, tech companies need vast amounts of data. This is where A.I. startups like Scale AI, which provides troves of accurately labeled data and is headed by billionaire Alexandr Wang, come in. Nvidia participated in a $1 billion funding round for the company in May alongside Big Tech players like Amazon and Meta.

    Wayve

    Autonomous driving is another area of interest for A.I. leaders across the tech world. Huang himself said that “every single car, someday, will have to have autonomous capability” in a recent interview with Yahoo Finance. One of the startups at the forefront of this wave is the U.K.-based Wayve. Nvidia participated in a $1 billion funding round in the startup in May.

    Inflection AI

    Out of the 92 startups Nvidia has backed throughout the decades, Huang’s company has only been a lead investor in 20 rounds. One of these occurred in June 2023, when Nvidia led a staggering $1.3 billion round for Inflection AI. The chipmaker co-led the round alongside Microsoft, Bill Gates and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

    The A.I. startup, which was co-founded by LinkedIn (LNKD) co-founder Reid Hoffman and Google DeepMind co-founder Mustafa Suleyman and most recently valued at $4 billion, produces a chatbot known as Pi. Much of the round’s funding went towards bolstering Inflection A.I.’s computing cluster of 22,000 Nvidia H100 GPUs.

    Nvidia’s Billion-Dollar A.I. Pitch: How the Chip Giant Ramps Up Startup Bets

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Shaq Refused To Pay $80,000 For Security And Made A Surprising Choice. He Invested In A Company Bezos Later Bought For $1 Billion

    Shaq Refused To Pay $80,000 For Security And Made A Surprising Choice. He Invested In A Company Bezos Later Bought For $1 Billion

    [ad_1]

    Shaq Refused To Pay $80,000 For Security And Made A Surprising Choice. He Invested In A Company Bezos Later Bought For $1 Billion

    Shaquille O’Neal is known for his dominance on the basketball court, but his business moves off the court are just as impressive. One of the most surprising stories about Shaq isn’t about a slam dunk or a championship win — it’s about how he turned a simple home security issue into a multi-million-dollar investment.

    Don’t Miss:

    Shaq has three homes in Atlanta, where he’s lived for years, and he needed a new security system for one of them. When he contacted a security company, they quoted him $80,000. Even though he’s worth millions, Shaq knew that price was way too high. So, he did what many of us would do and looked for a cheaper solution. While shopping at Best Buy, he spotted some Ring cameras and decided to buy one.

    “The crazy thing about it is I hooked it up myself,” Shaq said, clearly proud of his DIY skills. He installed the camera, and then, while traveling in China, he realized just how powerful the system was. He could see and talk to someone at his front door from halfway around the world. That’s when it clicked for Shaq — this wasn’t just a good product but a game-changer.

    Trending: If there was a new fund backed by Jeff Bezos offering a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends would you invest in it?

    Excited about what he had discovered, Shaq decided to take things a step further. He tracked down the company’s booth at a tech conference and made a bold offer to the CEO. “I said, ‘Hey, my name is Shaquille O’Neal. I want to invest in your company, and you’re going to pay me to do commercials, and then whatever happens happens,’” Shaq recounted. The CEO agreed, and Shaq became an early investor in Ring.

    A few years later, Jeff Bezos bought Ring for $1 billion. Shaq’s decision to invest in this still relatively unknown company saved him money on his home security and made him a lot of money in return. How much exactly? He never disclosed.

    Trending: These five entrepreneurs are worth $223 billion – they all believe in one platform that offers a 7-9% target yield with monthly dividends

    But this wasn’t Shaq’s first smart investment. In 1999, while still in his NBA prime, Shaq’s agent introduced him to Ron Conway, a top venture capitalist. During a lunch at the Four Seasons, Conway pitched him on investing in a little-known company called Google. Shaq invested $250,000, which grew significantly as Google became a tech giant.

    He said, “We had a meeting with them and it looked good, and I put some money in and forgot about it.”

    Shaq’s portfolio doesn’t stop there. He’s also invested in companies like Lyft, Apple and Vitaminwater. With Lyft, he jumped in just a year after it was founded, and when the company went public in 2019, it was valued at $22 billion.

    Read Next:

    “ACTIVE INVESTORS’ SECRET WEAPON” Supercharge Your Stock Market Game with the #1 “news & everything else” trading tool: Benzinga Pro – Click here to start Your 14-Day Trial Now!

    Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?

    This article Shaq Refused To Pay $80,000 For Security And Made A Surprising Choice. He Invested In A Company Bezos Later Bought For $1 Billion originally appeared on Benzinga.com

    © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Leonard Riggio, who forged a bookselling empire at Barnes & Noble, dead at 83

    Leonard Riggio, who forged a bookselling empire at Barnes & Noble, dead at 83

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — Leonard Riggio, a brash, self-styled underdog who transformed the publishing industry by building Barnes & Noble into the country’s most powerful bookseller before his company was overtaken by the rise of Amazon.com, has died at age 83.

    Riggio died Tuesday “following a valiant battle with Alzheimer’s disease,” according to a statement issued by his family. He had stepped down as chairman in 2019 after the chain was sold to the hedge fund Elliott Advisors.

    “His leadership spanned decades, during which he not only grew the company but also nurtured a culture of innovation and a love for reading,” reads a statement from Barnes & Noble.

    Riggio’s near-half-century reign began in 1971 when he used a $1.2 million loan to purchase Barnes & Noble’s name and the flagship store on lower Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. He acquired hundreds of new stores over the next 20 years and, in the 1990s, launched what became a nationwide empire of “superstores” that combined a chain’s discount prices and massive capacity with the cozy appeal of couches, reading chairs and cafes.

    “Our bookstores were designed to be welcoming as opposed to intimidating,” Riggio told The New York Times in 2016. “These weren’t elitist places. You could go in, get a cup of coffee, sit down and read a book for as long as you like, use the restroom. These were innovations that we had that no one thought was possible.”

    He grew up working class in New York City, liked to say he preferred socializing with childhood pals over fellow business leaders and was informal enough among associates to be known as “Lenny.” But in his time no one in the book world was more feared. With the power to make any given book a bestseller, or a flop, to alter the market on an idle whim, Riggio could terrify publishers simply by suggesting prices were too high or that he might sign up such top sellers as Stephen King and John Grisham and publish them himself. He even tried to buy the country’s biggest book wholesaler, Ingram, in 1999, but backed off after facing government resistance.

    By the end of the 1990s, an estimated one of every eight books sold in the U.S. were purchased through the chain, where front table displays were so valuable that publishers paid thousands of dollars to have their books included. Thousands of independent sellers went out of business even as Riggio insisted that he was expanding the market by opening up in neighborhoods without an existing store. Instead, independent owners spoke of being overwhelmed by competition from both Barnes & Noble and Borders Book Group, the rival chains sometimes setting up stores in close proximity to each other and to the locally owned business.

    Barnes & Noble became so identified as an overdog that one of the 1990s’ most popular romantic comedies, “You’ve Got Mail,” starred Tom Hanks as an executive for the “Fox Books” chain and Meg Ryan as the owner of an endangered independent store in Manhattan.

    “We are going to seduce them with our square footage, and our discounts, and our deep arm chairs, and our cappuccino,” Hanks’ character confidently declares. “They’re going to hate us at the beginning, but we’ll get ’em in the end.”

    Acrimony from independent booksellers

    For a time, it seemed industry conversation was an ongoing response to Barnes & Noble. Publishers were known to change the cover or title of a book simply because a Barnes & Noble official had objected. “Angela’s Ashes” author Frank McCourt found himself condemned by the American Booksellers Association, the trade organization for independents, after agreeing to appear in a Barnes & Noble commercial. On the floor of the industry’s annual national trade show, long hosted by the ABA, independent store employees would hiss at attendees wearing Barnes & Noble badges.

    When novelist Russell Banks, addressing Barnes & Noble’s annual shareholder meeting in 1995, declared that he was both a stock holder and a happy B&N customer, some independent sellers stopped offering his books.

    “You must know that I’ll never read, buy or sell another word you write,” Richard Howorth, owner of Square Books in Oxford, Mississippi, wrote to him. “These are the kindest things I can think of to say to you.”

    Tensions led to legal action when the ABA — on the eve of the 1994 convention — announced it was suing Barnes & Noble and five leading publishers for unfair trade practices. Some of the publishers were so angered they boycotted the gathering the following year and only returned after the ABA sold the show to Reed Exhibitions. In 1998, the ABA sued Barnes & Noble and Borders for unfair business practices (both cases were settled out of court).

    The internet shifts bookselling

    Riggio began the 2000s at the height of power, with more than 700 superstores and hundreds of others outlets. But internet commerce was growing quickly and Barnes & Noble, with its roots in physical retail, lacked the imagination and flexibility of the startup from Seattle that called itself “Earth’s Biggest Bookstore,” Amazon.com. The online giant launched in 1995 by Jeff Bezos gained business throughout the 2000s and by the early 2010s had displaced Barnes & Noble through such innovations as the Kindle e-book reader and the Amazon Prime subscription service.

    Bezos would liken himself to David taking down Goliath, although the contrast between the leaders also had the feel of an Aesop’s fable: The muscular, mustachioed Riggio, a boxer’s son, upended by the quick and clever Bezos.

    “We’re great booksellers; we know how to do that,’’ Riggio acknowledged to the Times in 2016. “We weren’t constituted to be a technology company.”

    Barnes & Noble started its own online site in the late 1990s, but such initiatives as the Nook e-book reader and a self-publishing platform failed to stop Amazon. Not even the collapse of Borders after the 2008-2009 economic crisis mattered for Barnes & Noble, which after decades of expansion closed more than 100 stores between 2009 and 2019.

    An unlikely ally of independent booksellers

    By the time of Riggio’s retirement, independent sellers regarded the chain not as a threat, but as an ally in the fight against Amazon to keep physical stores alive. At the 2018 booksellers convention, Riggio and ABA CEO Oren Teicher, once enemies in business and in court, praised each other during a joint appearance.

    “My standing here, doing what I’m about to do (introduce Riggio) would have been impossible to imagine several years ago,” Teicher said at the time. “The simple fact is that our business is stronger and American readers benefit when there is a vibrant and healthy network of brick-and-mortar bookshops all across the country.”

    During the 2010s, Barnes & Noble seemed unleadable and unwanted. The board announced in 2010 that the company was for sale, but no one offered to buy it. Four CEOs left in five years and Barnes & Noble’s stock dropped 60% between 2015 and 2018. New rumors of a sale lasted for months before Elliott Advisors, which had previously purchased the British chain Waterstones, bought Barnes & Noble for $638 million and hired Waterstones chief executive James Daunt to lead B&N.

    “I don’t miss being a business person, I had enough of that. But I do miss the bookselling part, helping to find books to recommend to customers,” Riggio told Publishers Weekly in 2021.

    Riggio’s roots and early bookselling ventures

    Bookselling and family often overlapped for Riggio. His brother Steve Riggio served for years as vice chairman of Barnes & Noble and another brother, Vincent “Jimi” Riggio, helped run a trucking company that shipped the store’s books. After being interviewed in 1974 by the trade publication College Store Executive, Leonard Riggio met for coffee with the editor, Louise Gebbia, who seven years later became his second wife (Riggio had three children, two with his first wife, one with his second).

    Leonard S. Riggio was the eldest son of a prize fighter (who twice defeated Rocky Graziano) turned cab driver and a dress maker. Even in childhood, he advanced quickly, skipping two grades and attending one of the city’s top high schools, Brooklyn Tech. He studied metallurgical engineering at New York University’s night school before focusing on commerce, and by day absorbed the bookselling world and the rising cultural rebellion of the 1960s.

    Working as a floor manager at the campus book store, he learned enough to drop out of school and start a rival shop in 1965 — SBX (Student Book Exchange), where he allowed student activists to use the copying machine to print copies of anti-war leaflets. SBX was so successful he bought several other campus stores and was in position by 1971 to buy Barnes & Noble and its single Manhattan store. A few years later, he became the rare bookseller to run television commercials, with the catchphrase “Barnes & Noble! Of Course! Of Course!”

    Riggio and the independent community may have seemed to hold opposing values, but they shared a love of reading and the arts and a liberal political outlook. He was a generous philanthropist and a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians. He was even friendly with the consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who featured Riggio, Ted Turner and Yoko Ono among others in his 2009 novel “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”, in which Nader imagines a progressive revolution from above.

    “Ever since he was a boy from Brooklyn, he’d had a visceral reaction to the way workings stiffs and the poor were treated on a day-to-day basis,” Nader wrote of Riggio, who did at times stand apart from his management peers. When some 200 business leaders were questioned by Fortune magazine in the 1990s about their political ideas, only Riggio supported the raising of worker pay.

    “Money can become a burden, like something you carry on your shoulders,” he told New York magazine in 1999. “My nature is to be a ball-buster, but my role is to help people.”

    ___

    This story has been updated to correct the names of Riggio’s second wife and one of his brothers. They are Louise Gebbia, not Louise Altavilla, and Vincent “Jimi,” not Thomas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Leonard Riggio, builder of Barnes & Noble empire, dies at 83

    Leonard Riggio, builder of Barnes & Noble empire, dies at 83

    [ad_1]

    Barnes & Noble buys Colorado bookstore chain Tattered Cover


    Barnes & Noble buys Colorado bookstore chain Tattered Cover

    00:29

    Leonard Riggio, a brash, self-styled underdog who transformed the publishing industry by building Barnes & Noble into the country’s most powerful bookseller before his company was overtaken by the rise of Amazon.com, has died at age 83.

    Riggio died Tuesday “following a valiant battle with Alzheimer’s disease,” according to a statement issued by his family. He had stepped down as chairman in 2019 after the chain was sold to the hedge fund Elliott Advisors.

    “His leadership spanned decades, during which he not only grew the company but also nurtured a culture of innovation and a love for reading,” reads a statement from Barnes & Noble.

    Riggio’s near-half century reign began in 1971 when he used a $1.2 million loan to purchase Barnes & Noble’s name and the flagship store on lower Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. He acquired hundreds of new stores over the next 20 years and, in the 1990s, launched what became a nationwide empire of “superstores” that combined a chain’s discount prices and massive capacity with the cozy appeal of couches, reading chairs and cafes.

    “These weren’t elitist places”

    “Our bookstores were designed to be welcoming as opposed to intimidating,” Riggio told The New York Times in 2016. “These weren’t elitist places. You could go in, get a cup of coffee, sit down and read a book for as long as you like, use the restroom. These were innovations that we had that no one thought was possible.”

    He grew up working class in New York City, liked to say he preferred socializing with childhood pals over fellow business leaders and was informal enough among associates to be known as “Lenny.” But in his time no one in the book world was more feared. 

    With the power to make any given book a best seller, or a flop, to alter the market on an idle whim, Riggio could terrify publishers simply by suggesting prices were too high or that he might sign up such top sellers as Stephen King and John Grisham and publish them himself. He even tried to buy the country’s biggest book wholesaler, Ingram, in 1999, but backed off after facing government resistance.

    By the end of the 1990s, an estimated one of every eight books sold in the U.S. were purchased through the chain, where front table displays were so valuable that publishers paid thousands of dollars to have their books included. Thousands of independent sellers went out of business even as Riggio insisted that he was expanding the market by opening up in neighborhoods without an existing store. 

    Instead, independent owners spoke of being overwhelmed by competition from both Barnes & Noble and Borders Book Group, the rival chains sometimes setting up stores in close proximity to each other and to the locally owned business.

    Impact on indie bookstores

    Barnes & Noble became so identified as an overdog that one of the 1990s’ most popular romantic comedies, “You’ve Got Mail,” starred Tom Hanks as an executive for the “Fox Books” chain and Meg Ryan as the owner of an endangered independent store in Manhattan.

    “We are going to seduce them with our square footage, and our discounts, and our deep arm chairs, and our cappuccino,” Hanks’ character confidently declares. “They’re going to hate us at the beginning, but we’ll get ’em in the end.”

    For a time, it seemed industry conversation was an ongoing response to Barnes & Noble. Publishers were known to change the cover or title of a book simply because a Barnes & Noble official had objected. “Angela’s Ashes” author Frank McCourt found himself condemned by the American Booksellers Association, the trade organization for independents, after agreeing to appear in a Barnes & Noble commercial. On the floor of the industry’s annual national trade show, long hosted by the ABA, independent store employees would hiss at attendees wearing Barnes & Noble badges.

    When novelist Russell Banks, addressing Barnes & Noble’s annual shareholder meeting in 1995, declared that he was both a stock holder and a happy B&N customer, some independent sellers stopped offering his books.

    “You must know that I’ll never read, buy or sell another word you write,” Richard Howorth, owner of Square Books in Oxford, Mississippi, wrote to him. “These are the kindest things I can think of to say to you.”

    Tensions led to legal action when the ABA — on the eve of the 1994 convention — announced it was suing Barnes & Noble and five leading publishers for unfair trade practices. Some of the publishers were so angered they boycotted the gathering the following year and only returned after the ABA sold the show to Reed Exhibitions. In 1998, the ABA sued Barnes & Noble and Borders for unfair business practices (both cases were settled out of court).

    Amazon effect

    Riggio began the 2000s at the height of power, with more than 700 superstores and hundreds of others outlets. But internet commerce was growing quickly and Barnes & Noble, with its roots in physical retail, lacked the imagination and flexibility of the startup from Seattle that called itself “Earth’s Biggest Bookstore,” Amazon.com. 

    The online giant launched in 1995 by Jeff Bezos gained business throughout the 2000s and by the early 2010s had displaced Barnes & Noble through such innovations as the Kindle e-book reader and the Amazon Prime subscription service.

    Bezos would liken himself to David taking down Goliath, although the contrast between the leaders also had the feel of an Aesop’s fable: The muscular, mustachioed Riggio, a boxer’s son, upended by the quick and clever Bezos.

    “We’re great booksellers; we know how to do that,” Riggio acknowledged to the Times in 2016. “We weren’t constituted to be a technology company.”

    Barnes & Noble started its own online site in the late 1990s, but such initiatives as the Nook e-book reader and a self-publishing platform failed to stop Amazon. Not even the collapse of Borders after the 2008-2009 economic crisis mattered for Barnes & Noble, which after decades of expansion closed more than 100 stores between 2009 and 2019.

    By the time of Riggio’s retirement, independent sellers regarded the chain not as a threat, but as an ally in the fight against Amazon to keep physical stores alive. At the 2018 booksellers convention, Riggio and ABA CEO Oren Teicher, once enemies in business and in court, praised each other during a joint appearance.

    “My standing here, doing what I’m about to do (introduce Riggio) would have been impossible to imagine several years ago,” Teicher said at the time. “The simple fact is that our business is stronger and American readers benefit when there is a vibrant and healthy network of brick-and-mortar bookshops all across the country.”

    Turning the page

    During the 2010s, Barnes & Noble seemed unleadable and unwanted. The board announced in 2010 that the company was for sale, but no one offered to buy it. Four CEOs left in five years and Barnes & Noble’s stock dropped 60% between 2015 and 2018. New rumors of a sale lasted for months before Elliott Advisors, which had previously purchased the British chain Waterstones, bought Barnes & Noble for $638 million and hired Waterstones chief executive James Daunt to lead B&N.

    “I don’t miss being a business person, I had enough of that. But I do miss the bookselling part, helping to find books to recommend to customers,” Riggio told Publishers Weekly in 2021.

    Bookselling and family often overlapped for Riggio. His brother Steve Riggio served for years as vice chairman of Barnes & Noble and another brother, Thomas Riggio, helped run a trucking company that shipped the store’s books. After being interviewed in 1974 by the trade publication College Store Executive, Leonard Riggio met for coffee with the editor, Louise Altavilla, who seven years later became his second wife (Riggio had three children, two with his first wife, one with his second).

    Leonard S. Riggio was the eldest son of a prizefighter (who twice defeated Rocky Graziano) turned cab driver and a dress maker. Even in childhood, he advanced quickly, skipping two grades and attending one of the city’s top high schools, Brooklyn Tech. He studied metallurgical engineering at New York University’s night school before focusing on commerce, and by day absorbed the bookselling world and the rising cultural rebellion of the 1960s.

    Working as a floor manager at the campus bookstore, he learned enough to drop out of school and start a rival shop in 1965 — SBX (Student Book Exchange), where he allowed student activists to use the copying machine to print copies of anti-war leaflets. SBX was so successful he bought several other campus stores and was in position by 1971 to buy Barnes & Noble and its single Manhattan store. A few years later, he became the rare bookseller to run television commercials, with the catchphrase “Barnes & Noble! Of Course! Of Course!”


    Barnes & Noble opens a new chapter in old bank building

    00:30

    Riggio and the independent community may have seemed to hold opposing values, but they shared a love of reading and the arts and a liberal political outlook. He was a generous philanthropist and a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians. He was even friendly with the consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who featured Riggio, Ted Turner and Yoko Ono among others in his 2009 novel “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”, in which Nader imagines a progressive revolution from above.

    “Ever since he was a boy from Brooklyn, he’d had a visceral reaction to the way workings stiffs and the poor were treated on a day-to-day basis,” Nader wrote of Riggio, who did at times stand apart from his management peers. When some 200 business leaders were questioned by Fortune magazine in the 1990s about their political ideas, only Riggio supported the raising of worker pay.

    “Money can become a burden, like something you carry on your shoulders,” he told New York magazine in 1999. “My nature is to be a ball-buster, but my role is to help people.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • If Warren Buffett’s Son Didn’t Sell His 90K Berkshire Hathaway Inheritance 47 Years Ago To ‘Buy Time,’ He Would Have This Much Today

    If Warren Buffett’s Son Didn’t Sell His 90K Berkshire Hathaway Inheritance 47 Years Ago To ‘Buy Time,’ He Would Have This Much Today

    [ad_1]

    If Warren Buffett’s Son Didn’t Sell His 90K Berkshire Hathaway Inheritance 47 Years Ago To ‘Buy Time,’ He Would Have This Much Today

    Peter Buffett, the son of legendary investor Warren Buffett, made a life-altering decision 47 years ago when he traded his inheritance “to buy time.” Although he missed out on what could have been hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, he stands by his choice, confident that his father would agree.

    Don’t Miss:

    Finding His Path: At 19, Buffett received a portion of the proceeds from the sale of his grandfather’s farm, which his father invested in Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE:BRK) (NYSE:BRK), amounting to $90,000, according to CNBC. His father made it clear that this was all the financial support he would receive for personal use. Despite knowing it was his entire inheritance, Peter sold his Berkshire stock to fund his passion for music.

    See Also: Don’t miss out on the next Nvidia – you can invest in the future of AI for only $10.

    Buffett dropped out of Stanford University, purchased a modest studio apartment in San Francisco, and invested in upgrading his recording equipment. He dedicated his time to honing his piano and music production skills.

    His big break came unexpectedly when a neighbor asked him about his profession, setting him on the path to a successful career in music.

    Trending: Mark Cuban believes “the next wave of revenue generation is around real estate and entertainment” — this new real estate fund allows you to get started with just $100.

    He told the neighbor that he was a “struggling composer” and the neighbor offered to introduce him to his son-in-law who was an animator looking for ad tunes for a new cable station — it turned out to be MTV.

    Buffett is now 66 years of age and has released around 15 studio albums over his successful career.

    Trending: This Jeff Bezos-backed startup will allow you to become a landlord in just 10 minutes, and you only need $100.

    The Path Not Taken: If the son of the legendary investor would have stayed in college and held onto his $90,000 investment in Berkshire Hathaway, it would be worth over $400 million today.

    “But I didn’t make that choice and I don’t regret it for a second. I used my nest egg to buy something infinitely more valuable than money: I used it to buy time,” Buffett said.

    That’s a decision that his father would be proud of, he noted. The billionaire taught his son that work isn’t about making as much money as possible, instead it’s about doing something that you love to do.

    Trending: How do billionaires pay less in income tax than you? Tax deferring is their number one strategy.

    Buffett acknowledged that the money was a privilege, calling it a gift that he had not earned.

    “Without those hundreds of unpaid hours spent fiddling with my recording gear, I would not have found my sound or approach,” Buffett said.

    The musician used the money to buy time to pursue something that he enjoys waking up and doing each day, which is exactly what his father tells young people to do. The billionaire has previously recommended that people pursue careers they would want even if money was not part of the decision-making process.

    Check This Out:

    This story is part of a new series of features on the subject of success, Benzinga Inspire. Some elements of this story were previously reported by Benzinga and it has been updated.

    “ACTIVE INVESTORS’ SECRET WEAPON” Supercharge Your Stock Market Game with the #1 “news & everything else” trading tool: Benzinga Pro – Click here to start Your 14-Day Trial Now!

    Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?

    This article If Warren Buffett’s Son Didn’t Sell His 90K Berkshire Hathaway Inheritance 47 Years Ago To ‘Buy Time,’ He Would Have This Much Today originally appeared on Benzinga.com

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lauren Sánchez: 1 Thing People Don’t Know About Jeff Bezos | Entrepreneur

    Lauren Sánchez: 1 Thing People Don’t Know About Jeff Bezos | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Lauren Sánchez shared how she and fiancé Jeff Bezos approach philanthropy in a new interview — and she said that one thing “people don’t really know” about Bezos is that he put an 8-floor, 63,000-square-foot homeless shelter inside an Amazon office building in Seattle.

    The Hollywood Reporter released a conversation between Sánchez and Eva Longoria on Tuesday. Longoria asked Sánchez about her and Bezos’s approach to philanthropy, and Sánchez stated that “Jeff is extremely focused, as you can imagine.”

    Related: Lauren Sánchez Is Heading to Space on a Girls Trip

    “We really look for organizations that are not only addressing urgent issues but also have a clear, impactful plan for making a difference,” Sánchez said.

    Longoria and Sánchez have been friends for 20 years, with Longoria winning $50 million through the Bezos Courage and Civility Award in March.

    Sánchez emphasized the $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund, which focuses on climate-related innovation, nature restoration, and climate justice. She also noted Amazon’s collaboration with Mary’s Place, an organization that helps support homeless families.

    “One thing that Jeff did with Mary’s Place is he put the homeless shelter inside Amazon’s offices in Seattle which is incredible,” Sánchez said. “I know. It’s crazy that people don’t really know about this that much.”

    Related: Bezos Earth Fund Is Donating $100 Million to Groups Using AI to Help Combat Climate Change

    Amazon employees just have to go downstairs to volunteer their time at the shelter, Sánchez added.

    Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez. (Photo by Yui Mok/PA Images via Getty Images)

    Amazon opened the shelter in May 2020, with space for up to 200 people every night. The facility has a health clinic, kitchen and dining areas, playrooms for children, and office space so Amazon’s legal team can offer legal help.

    Related: At 16, She Was a Homeless Single Mom With Serious Talent. Now, Her Business Brings in Millions.

    The shelter is kept private from Amazon offices through separate entrances.

    Amazon reported that in 2020, the center provided more than 85 families with emergency housing.

    Bezos has posted about the shelter on social media. In April 2021, for example, he posted a video of him and Sánchez taking Washington State Governor Jay Inslee through a tour of the facility.

    According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index at the time of writing, Bezos is the second richest person in the world with a net worth of $221 billion. Sánchez has a net worth of $30 million, per Prestige.

    [ad_2]

    Sherin Shibu

    Source link

  • Media and Tech Titans Arrive At Sun Valley 2024: In Photos So Far

    Media and Tech Titans Arrive At Sun Valley 2024: In Photos So Far

    [ad_1]

    Shari Redstone arrives at the Allen & Co. Sun Valley Conference on July 9, 2024 in Sun Valley, Idaho. Getty Images

    Today (June 9) marks the start of this year’s Allen & Co. conference in Sun Valley, Idaho. Known as the “summer camp for billionaires,” the annual get-together has since 1983 drawn in industry leaders across media, tech, politics and finance. Each year, the wealthy and elite touch down in private jets at the nearby Friedman Memorial airport, which describes the conference as its “annual fly-in event” and today experienced delays due to flight volume.

    Convening at the Sun Valley Lodge, attendees will spend the next few days networking and attending private lectures on topics like national security, health care and education.

    Media and tech titans like Shari Redstone, the chairwoman of Paramount Global who just agreed to a long-awaited merger with Skydance Media; OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) CEO David Zaslav have already been spotted outside the event. More than 60 power players in total have been invited to the exclusive conference, which has famously been the site of deals like Comcast (CMCSA)’s acquisition of NBCUniversal, Jeff Bezos’ acquisition of the Washington Post and The Walt Disney Company (DIS)’s acquisition of Capital Cities/ABC.

    Who’s been seen at Sun Valley 2024 so far?

    Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI

    Man in grey shirt driving away in golf cart Man in grey shirt driving away in golf cart

    Shari Redstone, chairwoman of Paramount Global and president of National Amusements

    Woman in red sweater stands next to white carWoman in red sweater stands next to white car

    David Zaslav, CEO of Warner Bros. Discovery

    Man in grey jacket stands outside in front of white carMan in grey jacket stands outside in front of white car

    Barry Diller, chairman of IAC

    Man in white shirt wheels bicycle Man in white shirt wheels bicycle

     

    This story is developing. Please check back for updates.

    Media and Tech Titans Arrive At Sun Valley 2024: In Photos So Far

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Sam Altman’s nuclear energy company Oklo plunges 54% in NYSE debut

    Sam Altman’s nuclear energy company Oklo plunges 54% in NYSE debut

    [ad_1]

    Sam Altman is now chairman of a public company. But it’s not OpenAI.

    On Friday, advanced nuclear fission company Oklo started trading on the New York Stock Exchange. The company, which has yet to generate any revenue, went public through a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) called AltC Acquisition Corp., founded and led by Altman.

    Under the ticker symbol “OKLO,” shares plummeted 54% on Friday to $8.45, valuing the company at about $364 million. Oklo received roughly $306 million in gross proceeds in the transaction, according to a release.

    Oklo’s business model is based on commercializing nuclear fission, the reaction that fuels all nuclear power plants. Instead of conventional reactors, the company aims to use mini nuclear reactors housed in A-frame structures. Its goal is to sell the energy to end users such as the U.S. Air Force and big tech companies.

    Oklo is currently working to build its first small-scale reactor in Idaho, which could eventually power the types of data centers that OpenAI and other artificial intelligence companies need to run their AI models and services.

    Altman is co-founder and CEO of OpenAI, which has been valued at over $80 billion by private investors. He’s said that he sees nuclear energy as one of the best ways to solve the problem of growing demand for AI, and the energy that powers the technology, without relying on fossil fuels. Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have also invested in nuclear plants in recent years.

    “I don’t see a way for us to get there without nuclear,” Altman told CNBC in 2023. “I mean, maybe we could get there just with solar and storage. But from my vantage point, I feel like this is the most likely and the best way to get there.”

    In an interview with CNBC Thursday, Oklo CEO Jacob DeWitte confirmed that the company has yet to generate revenue and has no nuclear plants deployed at the moment. He said the company is targeting 2027 for its first plant to come online.

    Going the SPAC route is risky. So-called reverse mergers became popular in the low-interest rate days of 2020 and 2021 when tech valuations were soaring and investors were looking for growth over profit. But the SPAC market collapsed in 2022 alongside rising rates and hasn’t recovered.

    AI-related companies, on the other hand, are the new darlings of Wall Street.

    “SPACs haven’t exactly had the best performances in the past couple of years, so for us to have sort of the outcome that we’ve had here is obviously a function of the work we put in, but also what we’re building and also the fact that the market sees the opportunity sets here,” said DeWitte, who co-founded the company in 2013. “I think it’s very promising on multiple fronts for [the] nuclear, AI, data center push, as well as the energy transition piece.”

    The company has seen its fair share of regulatory setbacks. In 2022, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied Oklo’s application for an Idaho reactor. The company has been working on a new application, which it isn’t aiming to submit to the NRC until early next year, DeWitte said, adding that it’s currently in the “pre-application engagement” stage with the commission.

    Altman got involved with Oklo while president of the startup incubator Y Combinator. Oklo went into the program in 2014 after an earlier meeting between Altman and DeWitte. In 2015, Altman invested in the company and became chairman.

    It’s not Altman’s only foray into nuclear energy or other infrastructure that could power large-scale AI growth.

    In 2021, Altman led a $500 million funding round in clean energy firm Helion, which is working to develop and commercialize nuclear fusion. Helion said in a blog post at the time that the capital would go toward its electricity demonstration generator, Polaris, “which we expect to demonstrate net electricity from fusion in 2024.”

    Altman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    In recent years, Altman has also poured money into chip endeavors and investments that could help power the AI tools OpenAI builds.

    Just before his brief ouster as OpenAI CEO in November, he was reportedly seeking billions of dollars for a chip venture codenamed “Tigris” to eventually compete with Nvidia.

    Altman in 2018 invested in AI chip startup Rain Neuromorphics, based near OpenAI’s San Francisco headquarters. The next year, OpenAI signed a letter of intent to spend $51 million on Rain’s chips. In December, the U.S. compelled a Saudi Aramco-backed venture capital firm to sell its shares in Rain.

    DeWitte told CNBC that the data center represents “a pretty exciting opportunity.”

    “What we’ve seen is there’s a lot of interest with AI, specifically,” he said. “AI compute needs are significant. It opens the door for a lot of different approaches in terms of how people think about designing and developing AI infrastructure.”

    WATCH: Investing in the future of AI

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos Commits $100M in Grants for AI Solutions to Climate Change

    Jeff Bezos Commits $100M in Grants for AI Solutions to Climate Change

    [ad_1]

    The billionaire is looking for tech-focused solutions to counter climate change. KENA BETANCUR/Afp/AFP via Getty Images

    Billionaire Jeff Bezos is looking for practitioners, researchers and innovators with ideas about combatting climate change with artificial intelligence. The Amazon (AMZN) founder’s Bezos Earth Fund will invest up to $100 million into solutions through the A.I. for Climate and Nature Grand Challenge, a new initiative urging applicants to propose ways to utilize emerging technologies for environmental good.

    “Can modern A.I. help counter climate change and nature loss, and, if so, how? That’s the question we hope to answer,” said Bezos, currently the second wealthiest person in the world with an estimated net worth of $197.7 billion, in a statement. “By bringing together brilliant minds across fields, we may be able to invent new ways forward.”

    Bezos first launched his environmentally-focused philanthropic fund in 2020 with a pledge to invest $10 billion toward fighting climate change over the next decade. It has given out some $2 billion through 230 grants thus far, focusing primarily on food system transformation, decarbonization efforts and nature conservation.

    SEE ALSO: Miriam Simun On Technology in Art and Science as a Medium

    Now, the fund is asking those working at universities, NGOs, private companies and global organizations to apply for grants that could help A.I. climate solutions come to fruition. For the first round of the Grand Challenge, Bezos is seeking solutions in the focus areas of sustainable proteins, biodiversity conservation and power grid optimization, with an additional “Wild Card” category for solutions falling outside the priority areas. Projects could include using A.I. to find protein alternatives with small environmental footprints, applying the technology to integrate renewable energy into electricity grids around the globe or utilizing vision and sound recognition to find new animal species, according to the Bezos Earth Fund.

    The organization has already made notable investments in the sustainable protein arena, having committed $60 million earlier this year to establish research centers focused on increasing the quality and nutritional benefits of meat alternatives. In February, it partnered with the Jane Goodall Institute-USA to expand conservation efforts across forests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Republic of the Congo.

    Using A.I. to solve climate challenges

    “The future is unlikely to be characterized by straight lines and gentle curves, but rather by unexpected changes and tipping points, good or bad,” said Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the Bezos Earth Fund, in a statement, adding that the arrival of A.I. “will potentially solve very difficult challenges.” The A.I. for Climate and Nature Grand Challenge will have two phases, with the first awarding up to 30 seed grants for promising A.I. solutions. Awardees will be announced in September at a Bezos Earth Fund-TED event during Climate Week NYC and will subsequently be allowed to apply for grants up to $2 million, with the opportunity to receive support from tech leaders and access to relevant infrastructures and databases.

    Bezos has previously proclaimed his support of A.I., calling himself “optimistic” about its potential for innovation and discovery in a 2023 podcast with computer scientist Lex Fridman. “Even in the face of all this uncertainty, my own view is that these powerful tools are much more likely to help us and save us than they are to unbalance, hurt us and destroy us,” he said.

    Applications for the inaugural edition of the Bezos’ Grand Challenge will open next month, and there are plans to address alternative climate priorities in subsequent rounds.

    Jeff Bezos Commits $100M in Grants for AI Solutions to Climate Change

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • Outside roles by NBC’s Conde, others reveal a journalism ethics issue: being paid to sit on boards

    Outside roles by NBC’s Conde, others reveal a journalism ethics issue: being paid to sit on boards

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK – As NBC News Group chairman, Cesar Conde, is already busy overseeing the network’s broadcast and digital news operations, along with CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo and NBC-owned local affiliates.

    Yet the executive also has a second paid job. And a third — as a member of Walmart and PepsiCo’s corporate boards. The arrangement has raised some ethical concerns, and reveals a potential blind spot for a news business usually very serious about conflicts — real or perceived.

    CNN’s new chief executive, Mark Thompson, chairs Ancestry.com’s board. And although Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, is not a journalist, the newspaper reminds readers who he is when writing about Amazon. Former President Donald Trump has eagerly pointed out Bezos’ dual roles.

    A former NBC News executive, Bill Wheatley, recently questioned the propriety of Conde’s outside corporate roles at a time when the news division’s leadership is already under fire for the hiring and quick dismissal — following a staff revolt — of former Republican National Committee head Ronna McDaniel as a contributor.

    “It seemed to me that this was an additional instance of NBC management not understanding the rules by which news leaders are supposed to play,” said Wheatley, who retired in 2005 as NBC News’ executive vice president and has done work as a news consultant since.

    Conde was on the Walmart and PepsiCo boards before he took over as NBC News Group chairman in 2020. The NBC News chief earned $275,018 from Walmart in 2022 and $320,000 from PepsiCo, in a combination of cash and stock, according to Salary.com.

    NBC wouldn’t comment to The Associated Press on the matter.

    NO EVIDENCE OF ANY EFFECT ON THE NEWS

    There’s no evidence that Conde has been involved with any NBC stories involving the two corporations. NBC pointed to a 2021 Wall Street Journal article where the network said he would recuse himself from any reporting on the companies.

    Generally, journalists work hard to avoid any situation where a conflict could be alleged, even if the conflict itself does not come to pass: Did reporters, for example, write positive stories on a corporation that a boss is involved with, or ignore bad news because it might anger a superior? Perception can be as important as an actual conflict; some journalists go so far as to not even vote in an election that their outlet is covering.

    This holds true within NBC as well. Among other rules: The business network CNBC that Conde oversees forbids its journalists — and their spouses — from owning stock for these reasons.

    Recusal is a good step, Wheatley says, but it doesn’t cure the conflict.

    “In an ideal world, I think news executives should avoid situations like this,” said Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota. If the situation can’t be avoided, it’s important to disclose it and make clear the companies will face reporting that takes place “without fear or favor,” she said.

    Kelly McBride, senior vice president and ethics expert at the Poynter Institute, the pre-eminent journalism think tank, agrees that the situation isn’t ideal. At the same time, she says, “we don’t want executives or anybody in journalism to be a blank slate.”

    Leaders in journalism have traditionally worked their way up the ranks but that’s not always the route anymore. Conde succeeded in corporate, not news, roles at Univision and Telemundo before getting his current job. CNN’s Thompson was a top executive at the BBC and The New York Times. At the latter, his biggest achievement was more in business than journalism, shepherding a successful digital transformation.

    CNN would not discuss whether Thompson is paid for his Ancestry.com job. Representatives for the company, a private one not obligated to disclose salaries, did not respond to a message. The Glassdoor jobs website estimated directors at Ancestry are paid in a similar six-figure range as the Walmart and PepsiCo jobs.

    Thompson has recused himself from any news involving Ancestry or other genealogical companies, network spokeswoman Emily Kuhn said.

    ABC this spring appointed Debra O’Connell, a longtime executive at the network and its corporate owner, the Walt Disney Co., to a position that oversees ABC News. O’Connell’s background is in sales and marketing. She has unpaid positions on boards involving National Geographic and the A&E Networks, both companies affiliated with Disney.

    HOW DO JOURNALISTS APPROACH THIS SITUATION?

    It’s hard to make assumptions about how journalists will deal with knowing the boss has interest in a particular company.

    It’s human nature to want to avoid problems, although McBride notes that some contrarian journalists who want to prove their independence would dive right in. For example, The Washington Post in 2021 analyzed government data for a story on the dangers faced by Amazon warehouse workers.

    Because NBC wouldn’t address questions about Conde, it’s not clear whether anyone at NBC Universal signed off on him continuing with his paid board positions.

    The New York Times and Wall Street Journal are two news companies with conduct codes that specifically talk about such roles. The Times says staff members “may not join boards of trustees, advisory committees or similar groups except those serving journalistic organizations or otherwise promoting journalism education.” The Journal says its employees “may not serve as directors, officers, advisors, investors, consultants or partners of any company or venture devoted to profit-making.”

    Other situations are murkier. ABC, CBS and Fox News said its news leaders don’t serve on paid outside corporate boards, but couldn’t or wouldn’t point to policies that forbid the practice.

    The AP employee handbook says that “we avoid addressing, or accepting fees or expense from, governmental bodies; trade, lobbying or special interest groups; businesses or labor groups; or any group that would pose a conflict of interest.” Neither AP President Daisy Veerasingham nor Julie Pace, AP’s executive editor and senior vice president, sits on any outside boards, a spokeswoman said.

    It would make sense for news organizations to make clear policies about service on outside boards, and outline procedures if it is allowed, Poynter’s McBride said. “I don’t think it was much of an issue in the past,” she said. “The nature of news companies has gotten much more complicated that it’s likely to become an issue in the future.”

    News organizations are also left to decide for themselves how to alert readers or viewers of potential conflicts. The Post generally makes clear its owner’s ties to Amazon when writing about the company; a September 2023 story about workplace safety included this disclaimer: “Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post.”

    The Post knows it is being watched. Trump has called the newspaper the “Amazon Washington Post” on social media and wrote on Twitter in 2018 that “The Washington Post is nothing more than an expensive … lobbyist for Amazon.”

    On NBC”s “Nightly News” last July, reporter Jacob Burns reported a story about how Walmart was using artificial intelligence to help stock its shelves and change the jobs of some of its employees. Burns quoted a company spokesman saying that AI wouldn’t result in job losses, and a business school professor who expressed some skepticism about that.

    While Conde’s NBC corporate profile mentions his association with Walmart, it was not included as part of Burns’ story or in a handful of digital pieces that have run about the company.

    ___

    David Bauder writes about media for The Associated Press. Follow him at http://twitter.com/dbauder.

    Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    David Bauder, Associated Press

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos Buys $90 Million Florida Mansion To Live In While His Other Newly Purchased $147 Million Homes Are ‘Demolished’ For A Mega Mansion

    Jeff Bezos Buys $90 Million Florida Mansion To Live In While His Other Newly Purchased $147 Million Homes Are ‘Demolished’ For A Mega Mansion

    [ad_1]

    Jeff Bezos, the world’s second-richest individual with a net worth of $203.7 billion, has made significant real estate moves in Florida’s exclusive Indian Creek Island, known colloquially as “Billionaire Bunker.”

    Bezos’s acquisition spree began with two mansions purchased for a combined total of $147 million. Not stopping there, Bezos recently added a third property to his collection for $90 million.

    The home, featuring six bedrooms and nine bathrooms, was acquired by Bezos through an off-market deal. Property records show the house was last sold in 1998,= for $2.5 million to banker Javier Holtz.

    Despite its luxurious attributes, the property’s valuation by Zillow stands at approximately $41 million, significantly lower than the price Bezos agreed to pay for it. This discrepancy highlights the premium Bezos placed on the property, possibly because of its location, exclusivity or potential as a custom home site beyond the estimated market value.

    Don’t Miss:

    Bezos’s latest property acquisitions are located next to the homes of Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner as well as the famed NFL quarterback Tom Brady. Situated in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the United States, Indian Creek is home to just 80 residences, each set in expansive mansions. These homeowners enjoy exclusive amenities, including a private golf course and country club, highlighting the area’s luxurious lifestyle.

    The latest reports from Bloomberg suggest an ambitious plan: Bezos intends to demolish the first two properties to make way for a massive mansion. However, this plan has not been officially confirmed by Bezos himself.

    Beyond the sphere of luxury real estate, Bezos’s relocation to Florida is strategically savvy, coinciding with selling approximately $8.5 billion worth of Amazon shares. Florida’s tax environment, known for its absence of a state income tax, offers a significant tax advantage, particularly for high-net-worth individuals handling large transactions like Bezos.

    Bezos’s latest real estate dealings and his decision to sell Amazon stock open a new chapter in his life, blending personal desires with a move to Florida, known for its favorable tax laws. His relocation to Miami, bringing him closer to family and his aerospace company Blue Origin, highlights a mix of reasons for the move, including personal, professional and tax-related benefits.

    While Bezos’s real estate moves are out of reach for most people, getting into the real estate industry doesn’t require millions.

    You can find opportunities to start investing in real estate with as little as $100 through this Bezos-backed company, real estate investment trusts (REITs) or crowdfunding websites, which offer a way for individuals to invest in property and real estate projects with minimal initial capital. These options provide a way for almost anyone to get a foot in the door of the real estate market, democratizing the ability to invest in this traditionally high-barrier industry.

    Read Next:

    “ACTIVE INVESTORS’ SECRET WEAPON” Supercharge Your Stock Market Game with the #1 “news & everything else” trading tool: Benzinga Pro – Click here to start Your 14-Day Trial Now!

    Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga?

    This article Jeff Bezos Buys $90 Million Florida Mansion To Live In While His Other Newly Purchased $147 Million Homes Are ‘Demolished’ For A Mega Mansion originally appeared on Benzinga.com

    © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • False Dosage Labels on 96% of Tested Amazon Hemp Products, Many With No Hemp or CBD

    False Dosage Labels on 96% of Tested Amazon Hemp Products, Many With No Hemp or CBD

    [ad_1]

    In the midst of blossoming cannabis and CBD reform throughout the West, hemp-derived cannabinoid products are increasingly taking center stage as legislators continue to raise red flags surrounding the lack of regulation and intoxicating potential of these products.

    Just in the past several months, a number of states have moved to introduce new policies to limit or ban the sale of psychoactive hemp-derived cannabinoid products, like delta-8 THC. Similarly, many are calling out some of the issues surrounding the regulatory gaps surrounding hemp-derived products in the market.

    Among them is CBD Oracle, a consumer research company aiming to improve safety and transparency surrounding cannabis products. 

    Most recently, it turned its attention to CBD gummies and other hemp products available for purchase on Amazon.com. While the company notes that Amazon will “tell you confidently” that they do not allow CBD gummies on the platform, CBD Oracle’s new independent analysis on such products begs to differ.

    A Look at Amazon’s Approach to Hemp and CBD Products

    While Amazon doesn’t technically allow CBD products, CBD Oracle suggests that sellers on the site largely get around this obstacle by avoiding the term “CBD” and instead using “hemp” on packaging and in product descriptions. 

    Neurogan CEO Jan Brandup said that Amazon’s “hemp products” are not related to actual hemp and rather use the term as a sales tactic.

    “It’s alarming how easily consumers are deceived into trusting these products, just because they are sold on a reputable platform like Amazon,” Brandup said. “The best case is they may drain your wallet.”

    Sunday Scaries CEO Mike Sill agreed, adding that many of the products on Amazon automatically lack credibility and ultimately quality due to the nature of the platform’s regulations.

    “When you search for ‘CBD gummies’ on the platform, no reputable brands populate in your search results,” Sill said. “The reason for this is that credible brands like Sunday Scaries, Charlotte’s Web and cbdMD are not allowed to sell on Amazon without being banned.”

    Rather, Sill said these companies engage in “brand burning,” meaning that once they are banned from Amazon, they essentially rebrand with a new name and packaging only to reupload the same products to the site and continue sales.

    “Their business model doesn’t include a focus on building a reputable brand and providing the highest quality and safest products to consumers; they are just looking for a quick sale and will do whatever is necessary to stay ‘live’ on Amazon,” Sill said.

    So what exactly do Amazon “hemp” products contain?

    Investigating the Contents of Amazon’s ‘Hemp’ Products

    In an effort to analyze the specific contents of CBD products on Amazon, the company purchased 56 of the most popular hemp products on the site and tested them through InfiniteCAL Labs. Most of the products (80%) were gummies, with eight tinctures, two topical creams and one pack of mints. A majority (89%) also made specific numerical claims regarding dosage.

    Around 30% (17 of 56) of the products tested contained CBD, averaging 547 mg per package. However, there was a large variance in CBD quantity between products, with a minimum of 28 mg of CBD and a maximum of 1,582 mg. While CBD Oracle notes that this at least shows Amazon isn’t being totally dishonest about some of these products containing hemp and hemp compounds, it still violates Amazon’s policies and may not be legally compliant.

    THC is also banned from Amazon sales, though six (11%) of the tested products contained the cannabinoid with the three containing the most comprised primarily of delta-8 THC. While all of the products were under the THC threshold set by the 2018 Farm Bill, the three delta-8 products “had very high quantities of THC” with 641, 2,507 and 3,028 mg per pack. The product with the highest amount of THC had 76 mg per gummy.

    The majority of tested products (35 of 56 products, or 62.5%) contained no cannabinoids at all with more than a third (24 of 56 products, or 43%) containing no hemp.

    InfiniteCAL Lab Manager Dr. Erik Paulson explains that hemp is typically infused into consumable products through hemp seeds, which contain no cannabinoids, or through extractable material pulled out of leaves, stems or buds — generally to create cannabinoid-infused products.

    “Simply put, if you buy ‘hemp’ from Amazon it is likely that you will actually be buying an expensive jar of gummy bears. Gelatin and sugar, priced at a premium,” CBD Oracle notes in the report.

    The report also confirmed that a whopping 96% of tested products did not advertise an accurate dosage.

    “If we assume the dosage listing refers to cannabinoids (and not just the total mass of hempseed oil), just two products were confirmed by lab testing to have a dosage within 10% of that listed on their labels,” the report states. “They contained an average of just 25% of the advertised dosage. In most cases, this was less than advertised, but one product primarily containing delta-8 THC had twice the promised dosage.”

    In addition, 52% of the products appeared to make an unapproved medical claim, and almost 95% of products did not provide Certificates of Analysis (COA), typically considered an essential for reputable companies selling hemp products.

    A Growing Issue and Potential Solutions

    While the report focused on Amazon products, CBD Oracle notes the prevalence of this trend, as other companies like eBay, Walmart and Alibaba carry similar products — sometimes the exact same options.

    Authors note the potential ramifications of selling these products, beyond safety and health concerns, in that it could undermine the broader hemp and cannabis industries and the reform progress so many are actively pushing for.

    “Amazon has demonstrated that they don’t understand the difference between hemp seed oil and hemp extract that contains cannabinoids,” said Forge Hemp’s Kelly Lombard. “As long as sellers are vague about a product’s contents, Amazon doesn’t seem to care. This is problematic because U.S. consumers need more information about hemp and CBD, not less. Amazon’s convenience and return policy may entice more consumers to try hemp products, but if their experience is negative, that hurts the industry.”

    CBD Oracle also lists some potential solutions to remedy these issues, though they largely fall on Amazon to either adhere to more strict verification and COA guidelines, if not completely remove any products making false claims. They note that customers tend to have limited impact and that individual efforts to combat or report these products may ultimately result in frustration and wasted time. 

    Authors also cite that the current model, a blanket ban on CBD encouraging companies to be dishonest and actively work around it, may not be the answer.

    “Even establishing a bare minimum requirement for hemp sellers — showing an up-to-date lab report — would be enough to send the snake oil sellers running for the hills,” the report concludes. “Will you be able to pretend that CBD isn’t available on your platform? No. But customers who are buying CBD on your platform — who already exist, like it or not — would be much, much more likely to get safe products that offer what they say on the label.”

    [ad_2]

    Keegan Williams

    Source link

  • No, Grimes Didn’t Make Fun of Elon Musk for Saying Rich Ex-Wives Have Destroyed Civilization

    No, Grimes Didn’t Make Fun of Elon Musk for Saying Rich Ex-Wives Have Destroyed Civilization

    [ad_1]

    Have you seen a tweet from Grimes making fun of her former partner, Elon Musk, for saying that wealthy ex-wives are destroying Western civilization? The Grimes tweet is fake. The musician didn’t actually poke fun at Musk over the comment. The Musk tweet, on the other hand, is completely real.

    “’Super rich ex-wives who hate their former spouse’ should filed be listed among ‘Reasons that Western Civilization died,’” the billionaire SpaceX CEO tweeted on Wednesday.

    Musk’s very real tweet was a response to a user on X who was criticizing MacKenzie Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, over the kinds of organizations to which she donates her money. Scott has given away at least $16 billion since her divorce. But the groups she’s giving to are apparently too woke, in this particular person’s opinion.

    A very real tweet from billionaire Elon Musk sent on March 6, 2024.
    Screenshot: X

    And that’s when Musk, a billionaire who’s been married three times, chimed in to give his two cents about how wealthy ex-wives are somehow destroying civilization. Musk didn’t elaborate on how that could be possible, but we digress. All of this is the background necessary to understand the fake Grimes tweet that’s currently going viral.

    “Is the ex-wife destroying Western Civilization in the room with us right now?” the snarky fake tweet from Grimes reads.

    Musk is the father of at least two children with Grimes, who is often used as a foil in photoshopped jokes about the billionaire. But this one isn’t a real tweet from the musician.

    The fake tweet from Grimes (top) over a very real tweet from Elon Musk.

    The fake tweet from Grimes (top) over a very real tweet from Elon Musk.
    Screenshot: X

    Who created this fake tweet to make it look like it was sent by Grimes? That appears to be an X account with the name Trap Queen Enthusiast and the handle @marionumber4. Gizmodo confirmed with the creator they indeed conjured this joke into existence on Wednesday, and it seems to be taking on a life of its own, as memes have been known to do.

    You can even find the fake tweet on Bluesky, a competitor to X, where people there also believe it’s real.

    “Better men have deleted their accounts and retired from the internet after burns half as severe as that,” one Bluesky user said late Wednesday.

    And just in case you didn’t think the chain of custody on this fake tweet wasn’t complex enough, another fake screenshot of the Grimes tweet has been created to make it look like a Community Note has been added.

    “While she did bear multiple of Elon’s children, Grimes was never technically married to Elon. Elon’s only real ex-wife is merely kinda rich,” the fake Community Note reads.

    Yet another fake tweet purporting to show a Community Note on a Grimes tweet. The Musk tweet is the only thing that’s real in this image.

    Yet another fake tweet purporting to show a Community Note on a Grimes tweet. The Musk tweet is the only thing that’s real in this image.
    Screenshot: X

    And that’s how these things spread. A joke that most people within a small online circle fully understand as a joke will break containment, spreading across the internet and even jumping to other social media sites. And then people are left to wonder whether it’s real or not—be it Mike Lindell supposedly driving drunk or an adorable croissant in the shape of a dinosaur.

    Checking the official Grimes X account won’t answer the mystery either, as it’s not there and anyone who’s asked can only respond that maybe she deleted it. Well, we’re here to tell you this one is fake because we confirmed it with the creator. But, again, we can’t stress enough that Musk’s bizarre tweet about ex-wives destroying Western civilization is very real. He really is just a very strange dude.

    [ad_2]

    Matt Novak

    Source link

  • Jeff Bezos is world’s richest person again, edging out former No. 1 Elon Musk

    Jeff Bezos is world’s richest person again, edging out former No. 1 Elon Musk

    [ad_1]

    Amazon founder Jeff Bezos took back his spot as the world’s richest man on Monday, dethroning Elon Musk on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

    Bezos’ net worth stands at $200 billion, according to the tracker, surpassing the Tesla chief’s $198 billion.

    jeff-bezos-elon-musk.jpg
    Jeff Bezos (left) and Elon Musk

    AP Photos / Mark Lennihan / Ringo H.W. Chiu


    Musk, who also heads X, the former Twitter, and SpaceX, has seen his riches fall by more than $30 billion as Tesla’s share price has dropped 25 percent in recent months.

    Adding to Musk’s woes, a court in January approved the annulment of his enormous Tesla compensation agreement, worth $55.8 billion and originally reached in 2018.

    Meanwhile Bezos, who no longer runs Amazon, has benefited from the ecommerce giant’s rising stock price.

    Even after recently selling off $8.5 billion in shares, he remains the company’s largest stockholder.

    The French CEO of the luxury group LVMH, Bernard Arnault, remains in third place in the rankings of the world’s richest people, with a net worth of $197 billion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link