The New York Budgets

Category: Business

  • Volvo Brake Failure Leads to Recall After Mountain Incident

    Volvo Brake Failure Leads to Recall After Mountain Incident

    Video provided by the owner.
    Stock Widget

    What should have been a peaceful drive down a scenic California mountain road turned into a harrowing life-or-death struggle for 69-year-old retired radiologist Dr. Peter Rothschild, whose Volvo XC90 plug-in hybrid suddenly lost its ability to brake. With dashcam footage capturing every moment of the escalating crisis, the terrifying incident is now at the center of a nationwide recall affecting nearly 12,000 Volvo vehicles — and raising serious questions about the automaker’s safety practices and software deployment. Volvo VOLV -4.10% ▼

    On a steep descent along Corona Road in Carmel Highlands, Rothschild’s Volvo — equipped with Volvo’s latest software version 3.5.14 — began to accelerate uncontrollably, defying the driver’s repeated attempts to brake. As his vehicle gained speed, Rothschild made a split-second decision that likely saved his life: he steered into an embankment, intentionally crashing the vehicle to avoid flying off the mountainside.

    “The last thing you want to do is panic, but this was a scary road and without brakes it’s very scary,” Rothschild told The Wall Street Journal. “This wasn’t my fault. This was Volvo’s fault.”

    A Preventable Catastrophe

    im 91693799?width=1260&height=839
    Video provided by the owner. © WSJ

    Unbeknownst to Rothschild — or the dealership that recently serviced his vehicle — his XC90 had been affected by a serious software flaw introduced in a prior update. The issue, tied to regenerative braking systems and use of “B-mode” or “One Pedal Drive,” could cause a complete loss of braking function after coasting downhill for over 90 seconds.

    According to Volvo Cars USA, the problem arose when a recall for a rearview camera defect was bundled with other system updates — updates which inadvertently introduced a new critical braking bug.

    Volvo now admits that around 11,500 vehicles out of more than 400,000 updated units may have been affected by the glitch.

    “We are treating this issue very seriously and doing everything we can to update all impacted vehicles as soon as possible,” the company said in a statement.

    IMG 3322
    IMG 3309
    IMG 3299

    Photos and video provided to © Carscoops by the owner.

    The Horror Caught on Camera

    Dashcam footage reviewed by Carscoops shows Rothschild’s Volvo XC90 speeding uncontrollably down a narrow road. Despite visible brake pedal application — confirmed later through vehicle data logs — the SUV accelerates, passing the one-minute-and-forty-second mark without slowing down.

    Data from the vehicle’s onboard recorder shows that brake input was consistent, and no throttle was applied. However, the vehicle did not respond. Faced with a fatal drop just ahead, Rothschild drove the SUV into a dirt embankment. The side airbags deployed, and the front suspension and wheel were shattered on impact. The wheel itself split into pieces, according to post-crash photos.

    Fortunately, no one was injured, but the psychological toll was real.

    “I don’t think I would’ve made the next curve and would’ve gone off the side,” Rothschild said. “I’ve driven Volvos since the 1980s, spent close to a million dollars on them over the years. But I’m done.”

    More Than Just One Incident

    Rothschild’s terrifying ride isn’t the only one. Carscoops confirmed at least three similar reports of brake loss under similar conditions, all tied to software version 3.5.14 — the same update Rothschild received just hours before his crash. In another case, a California driver (referred to as “Max”) experienced nearly identical circumstances in his two-month-old XC90 Recharge.

    “I was forced to steer off the road into the side of a hill to avoid going over a cliff,” Max said.

    After inspecting Max’s vehicle, a forensic crash reconstruction engineer found “no throttle input, full brake input, increasing speed — the brakes were clearly not functioning.” The post-crash analysis left little room for doubt: the failure was systemic.

    In June, Volvo initially warned owners of nine different models not to use B-mode or One Pedal Driving — driving modes typically associated with enhanced regenerative braking and energy efficiency.

    Affected models (2020–2026): XC90, XC60, XC40, S60, V60, S90, EX40, EC40, C40

    By July, the automaker escalated its warning, urging all affected vehicle owners to visit a dealer immediately to receive the fixed software — or risk losing braking altogether.

    As of this week, Volvo said roughly 600 vehicles still haven’t been updated. Owners are being told not to use certain driving modes until the patch is installed.

    Yet critics argue Volvo’s handling of the issue has been slow and opaque. Despite Carscoops’ repeated inquiries, Volvo has not provided a full incident chronology, nor explained why the software was distributed without more rigorous testing.

    Brand Reputation at Risk

    Volvo has built its legacy on safety innovation — from pioneering the three-point safety belt to its much-lauded commitment to zero fatalities in new Volvo cars. But this latest software snafu could tarnish that brand trust, especially among loyalists like Rothschild.

    “We almost died and they don’t even say they’re sorry,” Max said. “It’s a lame response from a company that built its name on protecting people.”

    Rothschild echoed the sentiment. “This isn’t just about fixing a car. This is about trust. You expect a Volvo to protect you, not betray you.”

    Volvo says that a software fix is already available and urges customers to update immediately. The fix can be installed over-the-air or at authorized dealerships.

    Until those answers are provided — and all affected cars are fixed — Volvo’s crisis may continue to deepen.

    Rothschild, who once proudly passed his love of Volvo on to his children, says he’s now shopping for a Tesla instead.

    “Safety shouldn’t be a gamble,” he said. “This isn’t a minor bug. This was nearly a death sentence.”

    What to Do If You Own an Affected Volvo

    If you own a 2020–2026 Volvo plug-in hybrid or EV, check whether your vehicle is part of the recall using the NHTSA Recall Lookup Tool or contact your local dealer. If your car is running software version 3.5.14, avoid B-mode and One Pedal Drive until the fix is installed.

  • Delta Air Lines Confirms to U.S. Legislators That It Will Not Personalize Ticket Prices with AI

    Delta Air Lines Confirms to U.S. Legislators That It Will Not Personalize Ticket Prices with AI

    ATLANTA, GA — Delta Air Lines is facing mounting scrutiny over its adoption of artificial intelligence in airfare pricing, following sharp criticism from U.S. lawmakers who raised concerns about potential “personalized pricing” — a practice where AI could tailor fares based on a customer’s individual data or perceived willingness to pay.

    In a letter sent Friday to three Democratic senators — Ruben Gallego (AZ), Mark Warner (VA), and Richard Blumenthal (CT) — Delta firmly denied any intent to use AI in that manner, stating:

    “There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized prices based on personal data. Our ticket pricing never takes into account personal data.”

    The issue surfaced after the senators expressed alarm at comments made by Delta President Glen Hauenstein in December, when he said that Delta’s AI pricing system can predict “the amount people are willing to pay for the premium products related to the base fares.” The lawmakers interpreted this to mean Delta could eventually implement AI tools that price tickets based on individual “pain points” — essentially, the maximum price a specific person might accept.

    In a joint statement last week, the senators warned that such a practice would “likely mean fare price increases up to each individual consumer’s personal ‘pain point.’” The phrase sparked public backlash, fueling concerns over digital price discrimination in a sector where pricing transparency is already murky.

    While Delta clarified that it is not using AI to set fares on a per-person basis, it acknowledged that it will expand AI-powered dynamic pricing systems to cover 20% of its domestic network by the end of 2025, in collaboration with Israeli startup Fetcherr, which specializes in AI-driven pricing models.

    Delta reiterated that this technology is intended to streamline conventional pricing systems based on aggregate market factors — such as demand, fuel prices, and competition — not consumer behavior or identity.

    Delta emphasized that dynamic pricing has been used across the airline industry for over 30 years, long before the arrival of advanced machine learning tools. Historically, ticket prices have fluctuated based on broad variables like demand spikes during holidays, competitor pricing, or regional economic trends.

    In the letter to lawmakers, Delta wrote:

    Open letter

    “Given the tens of millions of fares and hundreds of thousands of routes for sale at any given time, the use of new technology like AI promises to streamline the process by which we analyze existing data and the speed and scale at which we can respond to changing market dynamics.”

    In other words, AI would merely optimize what was already a complex pricing algorithm — not personalize it.

    Still, lawmakers remain unconvinced. Senator Gallego responded to Delta’s letter, stating:

    “Delta is telling their investors one thing, and then turning around and telling the public another. If Delta is in fact using aggregated instead of individualized data, that is welcome news — but we need clarity.”

    Delta’s assurances came amid broader industry and regulatory unease. American Airlines CEO Robert Isom voiced his own concerns during an earnings call last week:

    “This is not about bait and switch. This is not about tricking. Talk about using AI in that way — I don’t think it’s appropriate. And certainly from American, it’s not something we will do.”

    At the legislative level, Representatives Greg Casar (TX) and Rashida Tlaib (MI) introduced a bill last week that would ban the use of AI for pricing or wage decisions based on personal data. The bill directly references potential scenarios such as airlines raising ticket prices after detecting a consumer searching for a family obituary — a hypothetical scenario designed to illustrate emotional exploitation through algorithmic targeting.

    The bill comes after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a January staff report warning that companies increasingly use personal information — such as location, demographics, and even mouse movements — to adjust prices for goods and services.

    According to the FTC:

    “Retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices… A consumer profiled as a new parent could be intentionally shown higher-priced baby thermometers.”

    Delta’s partnership with Fetcherr and its AI revenue management strategy signals a broader trend in the travel and transportation sector. Airlines are exploring AI to help navigate volatile fuel prices, shifting post-pandemic demand patterns, and ongoing labor shortages.

    Fetcherr’s AI pricing platform is designed to mimic stock market dynamics, adjusting prices in real-time based on numerous market variables — from macroeconomic indicators to real-time seat availability. While powerful, such models inevitably raise transparency and fairness concerns.

    Despite the controversy, investors have reacted with cautious optimism. Delta shares (NYSE: DAL) rose 1.4% Friday following the company’s public response, reflecting investor confidence in Delta’s ability to manage AI implementation without triggering regulatory blowback.

    Industry analysts, however, remain split.

    Morgan Stanley aviation analyst Richard Hill commented:

    “AI will inevitably change airline economics. But companies must tread carefully. Crossing the line into personal pricing is a reputational and legal minefield — and Congress is watching.”

    While Delta has now publicly pledged not to use personal data for individualized fares, pressure from lawmakers and consumer advocates shows no sign of abating.

    Expect greater regulatory scrutiny in the coming months, as AI tools proliferate across industries. For now, the travel sector remains a key battleground in the growing debate over algorithmic fairness, data ethics, and the power of artificial intelligence to reshape market behavior.

  • Zuckerberg’s War on the iPhone

    Zuckerberg’s War on the iPhone

    ugedry3g4uyfrg3uygr34
    Mark Zuckerberg didn’t use Apple’s name the other day when laying out his vision for marrying superintelligent AI and his hardware. He might as well have. The New York Budgets/Getty Images

    In a tech world long dominated by Apple, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has taken aim at a new target: the iPhone as the center of personal computing. In a memo and earnings commentary timed to perfection, Zuckerberg may have fired the first true salvo in what could become the next platform war. His weapon? A sweeping vision of AI-powered smart glasses as the future “primary computing device”.

    On July 30, Zuckerberg published a manifesto titled “Personal Superintelligence,” in which he outlined his belief that AI is on the brink of superintelligence—a form of artificial general intelligence tailored to empower individuals. He wrote that future computing will live not in handheld screens, but in devices that see, listen, and respond—smart glasses. These, he declared, would replace smartphones as the dominant interface in daily life.

    He further asserted that absent such wearable AI gear, people would be at a “significant cognitive disadvantage.”

    Meta isn’t just talking. The company is pouring billions into the infrastructure to make this happen. It owns a 49% stake in Scale AI (~$14.3 billion) and plans AI data centers like Prometheus and Hyperion, each the size of Manhattan blocks. Annual capital expenditures for 2025 now top $66–$72 billion, heavily skewed toward AI infrastructure.

    Meta stock rose approximately 9% following the update—investors cheered the clarity of the pivot.

    Still, profitability concerns persist. Analysts note slower revenue and profit growth, powered by competitive pressure, TikTok’s ad traction, and uncertain returns on AI investments.

    In blunt terms: Zuckerberg is relinquishing reliance on Apple’s iPhone ecosystem. By betting on glasses, Meta seeks to sidestep Apple’s App Store fees, privacy sandbox, and hardware constraints. Previously, Zuckerberg criticized Apple for lacking innovation, limited accessory support, and suppressing wearable integration, particularly with Ray-Ban AI glasses.

    If realized, Apple’s dominance over personal computing could erode—substituted by a multimodal AI interface owned by Meta.

    Meta’s Llama AI—once open source—now faces tighter licensing, citing safety concerns. Zuckerberg signaled the company may not fully open-source its future models, unlike earlier promises.

    Zuckerberg’s announcement wasn’t marketing fluff—it was a fresh chapter in competition. He framed AI as a democratizing force, contrasting with rivals who allegedly envision automation reducing people to passive recipients of machine labor. Instead, he pitched a future of “personal empowerment.”

    Expect Apple to accelerate its own AI/AR strategy, possibly unveiling Vision Pro successors or streamlined AI glasses. If smart glasses gain traction, we may see a shift away from swipe-driven wearables toward continuous ambient AI.Regulators may reexamine data collection and privacy standards if Meta’s glasses become ubiquitous.

    Zuckerberg’s vision is bold, built on investment muscle and a clear sense of timing. He’s betting that AI and wearables will redefine personal computing—and unseat Apple’s long reign. Whether he succeeds will depend on execution: user trust, device comfort, battery life, AI reliability, and a compelling ecosystem no longer tethered to a screen.

    For now, however, it’s safe to say: Meta’s not only challenging the iPhone—but reimagining what a “computer” could be.

  • Ford’s “Made in America” Approach Backfires Amid Trump’s Tariffs

    Ford’s “Made in America” Approach Backfires Amid Trump’s Tariffs

    President Donald Trump’s aggressive new trade policies—designed to bolster domestic manufacturing—are hitting Ford Motor Company harder than many anticipated. Despite building roughly 80% of the vehicles it sells in the U.S. domestically, Ford is projecting a net $2 billion tariff-related drag on earnings for 2025, up from a prior estimate of $1.5 billion.

    Big Three Automakers Earnings Loss – 3D Chart
    Big Three to Lose $7 Billion in Earnings
    Ford, GM, and Stellantis—the so-called Big Three—now expect a combined $7 billion earnings hit this year
    3D column chart showing earnings losses for Big Three automakers: Ford $2 billion, GM $3.5 billion, Stellantis $1.5 billion, totaling $7 billion in losses.

    Despite its domestic-heavy production footprint, Ford isn’t insulated. It reported an $800 million tariff hit in Q2, contributing to a net loss of $36 million, and revised its full‑year earnings forecast to $6.5 billion–$7.5 billion, down from previous guidance of $7.0 billion–$8.5 billion.

    Made-in-America Isn’t Enough

    Even though Ford produces nearly four in five U.S.-sold vehicles locally, much of its parts and materials—like steel, aluminum, and EV components—are sourced internationally. Under the White House’s new trade regime:

    Foreign-made vehicle imports face new 25% tariffs, while automakers allied with USMCA countries can benefit from reduced levies as long as supplier sourcing meets content rules.

    Ford continues to face steep tariffs on materials and parts—particularly aluminum and steel—which squeeze margins despite local assembly.

    https%3A%2F%2Farchive images.prod.global.a201836.reutersmedia.net%2F2020%2F10%2F01%2FLYNXMPEG9042U
    Ford Motor Co. CEO Jim Farley poses next to a new 2021 Ford F-150 pickup truck at the Rouge Complex in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S. September 17, 2020. © REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo

    CEO Jim Farley warned the tariffs could “blow a hole in the U.S. industry” and force difficult choices in product planning and pricing strategy.

    Thanks to trade agreements with the EU, Japan, and South Korea, many foreign automakers now pay only 15% tariffs, significantly less than the 25% levied on imports from Canada and Mexico or on non‑compliant parts.

    Stellantis CEO Antonio Filosa noted that 8 million of the 16 million vehicles sold annually in the U.S.—made in Mexico or Canada with many U.S. components—now face higher tariffs than fully compliant imports from abroad.

    384442
    Stellantis North America COO and Jeep CEO Antonio Filosa speaks during the Stellantis press conference at the Automobility LA 2024 car show, Los Angeles, California, U.S., Nov. 21, 2024. © AFP Photo

    In Q1 2025, Ford’s revenue declined 5% to $40.7 billion but still beat expectations, and net income dropped from $1.3 billion to $471 million.

    • Offset strategies include:
      • Transporting compliant vehicles from Mexico through bonded channels to avoid tariffs
      • Halting exports to China
      • Implementing internal cost reductions totaling about $1 billion planned for 2025

    As of late July, Ford reinstated full‑year guidance, projecting $6.5 billion–$7.5 billion in adjusted EBIT, and affirmed $2 billion in tariff-related costs for the year.

    Big Three Carmakers Earnings – Accurate Data
    Analysts predict lower earnings at the Big Three carmakers
    General Motors
    Ford
    Stellantis
    Bar chart showing Big Three automakers’ net income from 2018 to 2026, with actual data through 2023 and analyst forecasts for 2024-2026.

    A recent study estimates the entire auto industry could incur up to $108 billion in tariff costs, with the Big Three alone losing roughly $41.7 billion in 2025. Bernstein analysts forecast up to a 60% decline in free cash flow for the trio, due to rising production costs and shrinking margins.

    Consumer pricing will likely rise: average new vehicle prices could increase by 4–8% by year-end, with some models seeing hikes up to $2,000, driven by imported parts tariffs and material cost inflation.

    US Car Sales by Assembly Location
    On average only half the cars sold in America are made there
    US car sales by country of assembly % (US companies starred)
    US
    Canada/Mexico
    Imported
    Horizontal stacked bar chart showing percentage of US car sales by assembly location for different manufacturers. US companies are marked with asterisks.

    Ford’s commitment to “Made in America” now looks paradoxical. The company is suffering disproportionately from a tariff regime meant to favor U.S. businesses—because its deep integration with global parts supplies exposes it to amplified cost burdens. Farley’s characterization of Ford as “the most American company with a $2 billion liability” captures the irony and urgency of the moment.

    Unless Washington revises or harmonizes its trade policies—particularly with key neighbors Mexico and Canada—the pain for Ford and its peers could deepen. Meanwhile, international competitors may seize market share just as consumer prices edge upward.

  • McKinsey Fears AI’s Existential Threat to Consulting

    McKinsey Fears AI’s Existential Threat to Consulting

    For nearly a century, McKinsey & Company has occupied a rarified perch as the elite advisor to CEOs, governments, and boardrooms across the world. Its consultants—often MBAs from the likes of Harvard, Wharton, and Stanford—once commanded deference bordering on awe. Their PowerPoint slides were gospel, their recommendations the blueprint for billion-dollar strategies. But today, that aura faces a threat no competitor has ever posed: Artificial Intelligence.

    In an era where software can generate business plans, synthesize reports, and even produce McKinsey’s trademark crisp prose in seconds, the entire business model of Big Consulting is under siege. And no firm feels the heat more acutely than McKinsey itself. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the firm’s own executives admit the scale of the challenge is nothing less than “existential.”

    “AI can increasingly do the work done by the firm’s highly paid consultants, often within minutes,” WSJ observed in its feature.

    The Business Model That Built McKinsey

    To understand why AI is such a disruptive force, you have to appreciate how McKinsey and its peers like Bain and BCG have made their money for decades.

    Leverage is the foundation: partners sit atop pyramids of junior consultants, who do most of the heavy lifting—research, analysis, modeling, and slide production. A single engagement manager might lead a team of 10 or more. For each month of work, McKinsey charges six- or seven-figure fees, often billing clients three times the cash compensation of each junior staffer.

    This approach has always depended on a perception that armies of bright, credentialed young analysts were irreplaceable. That perception is now crumbling. As Bob Sternfels, McKinsey’s global managing partner, told the Journal:

    “AI is now a topic of conversation at every meeting of McKinsey’s board.”

    It’s no wonder. AI systems can perform in seconds what once took weeks: consolidating reports, summarizing interviews, even generating presentations in the firm’s own voice. McKinsey’s most-used AI bot today isn’t even an analytics tool—it’s a writing assistant that drafts documents in the “McKinsey tone.”

    A Smaller Pyramid—and Shrinking Profits

    Traditionally, a strategy project required an engagement manager plus 14 consultants. Today, it might need just two or three consultants—and a suite of AI agents that never sleep or take vacations.

    “Clients will expect much smaller and more senior-heavy teams,” noted a former McKinsey partner in The Financial Times. “That throws a wrecking ball into how McKinsey generates enough revenue to produce the lofty pay to which its top brass has become accustomed.”

    If AI can automate the legwork, clients inevitably ask: Why pay seven figures for a deck we can largely assemble ourselves?

    The strain is already visible. McKinsey has shrunk its global headcount from 45,000 in 2023 to 40,000 in 2025, according to the The NY Budgets—a staggering reduction for a firm that grew rapidly over the past two decades.

    AI Advising: Lifeline or Illusion?

    McKinsey’s strategy, for now, is to pivot: from being a firm that helps clients “do strategy,” to being one that helps them implement AI. As Wired reports, the firm claims advising on AI now accounts for 40% of its revenue.

    Skeptics question whether that figure is inflated. “It’s defined as broadly as possible to sound like they’re at the bleeding edge,” one consultant told Bloomberg. Even if true, that shift doesn’t solve the core problem: AI is commoditizing much of what made McKinsey indispensable.

    In the dot-com era, a rush of new demand offset the commoditization of some advisory work. But in 2025, that surge hasn’t materialized. Corporate budgets remain tight, and procurement departments are under pressure to justify every dollar spent on consultants—especially when a chatbot can produce first drafts of the same slides.

    A Recruiting Challenge Years in the Making

    McKinsey has long marketed itself as the ultimate destination for elite graduates—a place where brilliant young people can earn big paychecks and a ticket to the C-suite. But if AI deflates profit margins, the economics supporting that model begin to unravel.

    As a New York Times retrospective on McKinsey’s past noted, the firm once responded to similar pressures in the 1980s by raising partner pay to keep up with Wall Street and private equity. To fund the increases, it expanded the size of junior teams. That strategy simply won’t work in the age of AI, when clients want leaner teams and more automation.

    Even McKinsey’s unique brand of “eliteness”—the intimidation factor of sending a dozen Ivy League MBAs to a meeting—has eroded. As one ex-partner told The NY Budgets:

    “Today, the executive suite is stocked with people who went to the same schools, worked at the same banks, and read the same case studies. They no longer feel like they need McKinsey to translate the world for them.”

    Inside the AI Transformation

    The firm has responded with an all-out push to integrate AI internally. Thousands of AI agents now help consultants assemble PowerPoint decks, take notes, and check logical consistency.

    McKinsey is piloting models to auto-generate detailed strategy recommendations. The company is exploring how AI can facilitate “co-creation” with clients, moving away from static reports to real-time workshops and simulations.

    Yet even these changes come with risks. A growing chorus of observers worries that AI-generated analysis will create an illusion of certainty and precision—while propagating errors. A recent FT op-ed warned:

    “There’s an unspoken fear that clients will treat AI outputs as gospel, when in fact many are based on data that is incomplete, outdated, or wrong.”

    A Future of Smaller, Nimbler Firms?

    Ironically, the same forces threatening McKinsey’s leverage model may benefit smaller consulting shops. With AI leveling the playing field, boutique firms can compete more effectively—especially those with specialized knowledge or access to proprietary networks.

    As Nick Studer, CEO of Oliver Wyman, told the Journal:

    “Companies don’t want a suit with PowerPoint. They want someone who is willing to get in the trenches and help them align their team.”

    McKinsey, for its part, has begun offering more outcomes-based contracts—tying compensation to measurable results rather than billable hours. Roughly a quarter of the firm’s revenue now comes from these agreements.

    None of this means consulting is dying. But the industry is in the midst of an epochal shift—and no firm embodies the stakes more than McKinsey.

    If AI keeps advancing, if clients keep demanding leaner teams, and if junior staff no longer generate leverage at historic margins, the world’s most famous consultancy may look very different a decade from now.

    As one ex-partner told Wired:

    “McKinsey used to be the firm you hired because no one ever got fired for hiring McKinsey. But when your board asks, ‘Why didn’t you just use AI?’—what will you say then?”

  • I Turned Down Mark Zuckerberg’s $1 Billion Job Offer

    I Turned Down Mark Zuckerberg’s $1 Billion Job Offer

    I Turned Down Mark Zuckerberg's $1 Billion Job Offer. Illustration: © NYBudgets/Getty Images
    I Turned Down Mark Zuckerberg’s $1 Billion Job Offer. Illustration: © NYBudgets/Getty Images
    Stock Widget

    In an era where billion-dollar valuations and nine-figure compensation packages have become the new arms race in artificial intelligence, one story out of Silicon Valley has taken even hardened tech veterans by surprise: Meta META -1.50% ▼ CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly offered more than $1 billion to a single AI expert — and was turned down.

    According to Wired, which broke the story, Meta has been relentlessly courting AI scientists from Thinking Machines Lab (TML), an elite AI startup co-founded by former OpenAI CTO Mira Murati. In its most brazen effort yet, Meta allegedly floated an eye-watering $1 billion compensation package to a single individual — a sum to be paid over several years. The response? A polite but firm “No, thanks.”

    Zuckerberg, it seems, is pulling every lever possible to accelerate the buildout of his new AI division — Meta’s Superintelligence Labs — in a frantic attempt to catch up with rivals like OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and Anthropic. But the refusal by TML’s team — not one of whom accepted any offer — paints a telling portrait of the current AI climate: money isn’t everything, even when the checks have nine zeros.

    Meta’s effort to poach elite AI talent stems from its broader push into developing what Zuckerberg has dubbed “personal superintelligence.” The company is racing to become a leader in AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), launching its Superintelligence Lab earlier this year with splashy announcements and big names.

    According to Wired and confirmed by Meta spokesperson Andy Stone, the company made several offers to Thinking Machines Lab employees. Stone disputed the $1 billion figure but did not deny the aggressive recruitment campaign. In addition to hefty salaries, insiders say Meta dangled enormous equity grants and bonuses — some of the most lavish offers ever made in the tech world.

    The company is “putting its chips on the table,” according to The New York Budgets, pumping billions of dollars into computing infrastructure, AI models, and research teams in hopes of catching up to more advanced competitors.

    In one leaked message obtained by Wired, Zuckerberg personally wrote to a recruit:

    “We’ve been following your work on advancing technology and the benefits of AI for everyone over the years. We’re making some important investments across research, products and our infrastructure in order to build the most valuable AI products and services for people.”

    But the recipients of those messages — and the money — have largely said no.

    Why They Turned It Down

    Despite Meta’s immense offers, Thinking Machines Lab employees have remained loyal — a rare move in an industry where “exit packages” and stock grants often win over even the most mission-driven minds.

    Multiple factors explain the mass refusal.

    1. Leadership Concerns

    Sources told Wired that many TML scientists are skeptical of Meta’s newly appointed AI leaders — most notably Alexandr Wang, the 28-year-old founder of Scale AI, who was brought in to help lead Superintelligence Labs.

    Wang’s leadership style was described as “questionably experienced” for a project of such scale, and insiders were worried that his “move fast” startup mentality could clash with the rigorous demands of cutting-edge AI research.

    2. Meta’s PR & Trust Problem

    Meta’s recent stumbles — including the botched rollout of its LLaMA 4 language model — have damaged its reputation among AI researchers.

    According to The Verge, Meta allegedly manipulated benchmark scores for its AI model to appear more competitive than it actually was. That undermined confidence in the company’s transparency and scientific rigor — values deeply held within AI research communities.

    3. TML’s Own Success

    Thinking Machines Lab is no underdog. In just 12 months, the company has raised the largest private AI funding round in history, reaching a $12 billion valuation. With ample capital, it can afford to pay its top talent generously and stay competitive without losing its soul to a corporate behemoth.

    A Broader Bubble?

    Zuckerberg’s billion-dollar offer is more than a headline — it’s a signal of what some analysts fear is becoming a bubble in AI.

    In interviews with The Wall Street Journal, venture capitalists and economists warn that the current investment frenzy feels eerily reminiscent of the dot-com bubble of the late ’90s. Companies are making enormous bets on models and infrastructure that are still far from producing significant revenue — or, in many cases, even working reliably.

    Meta’s desperation to hire top-tier talent reflects a fear of missing out on what may be the defining technological revolution of the century. But this gold rush mentality also suggests some companies — Meta chief among them — may be sacrificing long-term stability for short-term wins.

    Is Zuckerberg Losing His Touch?

    The optics of Zuckerberg — one of the richest and most powerful men in tech — offering a billion dollars to a startup employee only to be turned down may raise questions about his current influence and Meta’s direction.

    Once a juggernaut that could acquire or hire anyone it wanted, Meta is now struggling to retain trust, especially in areas as ethically and philosophically charged as artificial intelligence. Some in the AI world still associate Meta with surveillance capitalism, political controversy, and internal leaks that have revealed a troubling culture of “build first, ask later.”

    The Power Has Shifted

    The incident with Thinking Machines Lab reflects a larger truth: the power dynamic has flipped. Top AI researchers are now the prize — and they are choosing where to go, who to trust, and how they want to contribute to the future of intelligence.

    One former OpenAI engineer, speaking anonymously to TechCrunch, said:

    “We don’t want to just build smarter systems. We want to build responsibly, with values. And that means saying no — even to a billion dollars.”

    Zuckerberg may yet succeed in staffing up his Superintelligence Lab. But this high-profile rejection shows that even unlimited funds can’t buy loyalty — or vision.

    And for once, Silicon Valley is learning that a bigger check doesn’t always get the yes.

  • The images of starvation in Gaza are deeply misleading

    The images of starvation in Gaza are deeply misleading

    rt34t34t34t5345t

    The New York Times’ July 25 front page showing a picture captioned: “Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, about 18 months, with his mother, Hedaya al-Mutawaq, who said he was born healthy but recently diagnozed with severe malnutrition. A doctor said the number children dying of malnutrition in Gaza had risen sharply.” On July 30, the paper acknowledged that Mohammed “had pre-existing health problems affecting his brain and his muscle development.”

    It’s one of the most emotionally searing images circulated in recent months: a malnourished child behind a fence, desperate eyes piercing through the camera lens, with a woman stretching out a bowl for food. It’s been published by international media, invoked by politicians, and shared by millions online. It has come to symbolize, for many, the reported famine in Gaza.

    But there’s just one problem. The photo’s origin and context are hotly disputed — and increasingly, experts say, deliberately manipulated.

    Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his 3.4 million followers on X:

    “There is no starvation in Gaza, no policy of starvation in Gaza.”

    His remarks unleashed a digital firestorm. Former President Donald Trump broke ranks with his usual ally and responded:

    “There is real starvation in Gaza. You can’t fake that.”

    youtube placeholder image

    This rare division between two strong allies laid bare the intensifying war not just over territory, but over information — a propaganda war playing out across social media, newsrooms, and governments.

    Hamas’s Propaganda Machinery and Media Blindness

    Many analysts and security experts argue that Hamas is adept at exploiting global sympathy through carefully staged imagery. Images of skeletal children, overwhelmed hospitals, and food queues are frequently disseminated, often with little journalistic scrutiny.

    Take, for instance, the viral image of a girl at a community kitchen. On X (formerly Twitter), thousands of users — aided by Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, Grok — claimed the photo was from 2014, portraying a Yazidi girl fleeing ISIS in Iraq.

    Claims on social media said this photo was taken in 2014 in Iraq or Syria. In fact it was taken in Gaza City, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday, July 26, 2025, showing Palestinians struggle to get donated food at a community kitchen. © AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana

    Grok responded:

    “Yes, the photo is from August 2014… on Mount Sinjar in Iraq.”

    Citing Reuters, it labeled the image a case of repurposed content.

    rtr42bt8
    A girl from the minority Yazidi sect, fleeing the violence in the Iraqi town of Sinjar, rests at the Iraqi-Syrian border crossing in Fishkhabour, Dohuk province on August 13, 2014. © Youssef Boudlal—REUTERS

    But BBC Verify journalist Shayan Sardarizadeh debunked that claim. He identified the photo’s true source:

    “The image is from Gaza, taken on July 26, 2025, by AP photographer Abdel Kareem Hana.”

    Reverse image tools like TinEye confirmed the original publication date and location. Grok was simply wrong.

    As Sardarizadeh noted:

    “AI chatbots, including Grok, are not fact-checking tools and should not be used for that purpose, particularly in relation to breaking and developing events.”

    Still, damage was done. The manipulated claim was spread, repeated, and believed by many — a clear example of how quickly misinformation can overshadow the truth.

    The Case of Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq

    nn

    The New York Times’ July 25 front page showing a picture captioned: “Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, about 18 months, with his mother, Hedaya al-Mutawaq, who said he was born healthy but recently diagnozed with severe malnutrition. A doctor said the number children dying of malnutrition in Gaza had risen sharply.” On July 30, the paper acknowledged that Mohammed “had pre-existing health problems affecting his brain and his muscle development.”

    Another image that shocked global audiences was that of 18-month-old Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq. Published by The New York Times in a piece titled “Gazans Are Dying of Starvation”, the toddler was described as emaciated, with his father reportedly killed while searching for food.

    “As an adult, I can bear the hunger, but my kids can’t,” his mother was quoted.

    But investigative journalist David Collier quickly raised flags. He cited medical records showing Mohammed suffered from severe genetic disorders since birth and had required special supplements even before the war began.

    In response, The New York Times issued an editor’s note:

    “We have since learned new information… and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems.”

    They noted that while Mohammed’s condition had worsened due to the lack of medical care, his malnutrition was compounded, not caused, by the current war.

    To critics, the update wasn’t enough.

    “So you guys lied, got called out, and issued a complete non-apology,” one user posted on X.

    On Wednesday, a UN-backed food security task force warned that famine “is currently playing out” in Gaza. Their analysis said Gaza City had crossed famine thresholds for food consumption and acute malnutrition.

    The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry reports 154 deaths from hunger since October 2023 — including 89 children. However, critics question the credibility of the ministry’s figures, noting its alignment with Hamas and history of inflated or unverifiable statistics.

    Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the situation “a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.” Human rights organizations, including Israel-based B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, claim Israel is committing genocide through starvation, mass displacement, and bombings.

    Yet at the same time, The New York Times also recently reported Israeli military officials denying Hamas’s alleged theft of UN aid — suggesting the crisis may be more due to distribution chaos, logistical breakdowns, and internal Hamas mismanagement than direct Israeli policy.

    A Media Reckoning Is Overdue

    The Western media’s responsibility in this tragedy cannot be ignored. In the rush to file emotionally evocative stories, due diligence has often been sacrificed. As the New York Budgets Editorial Standards outline: verifying visual content, especially in wartime, is not optional — it is essential.

    “Every journalist must ask: Who took this photo? Where? When? Under what conditions?”

    Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated it will exploit suffering for propaganda. That doesn’t mean suffering isn’t real — but it does mean every claim must be thoroughly scrutinized. Too often, however, global outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Stuff have published without confirmation, only issuing updates days later.

    Starvation in Gaza may well be occurring. Humanitarian groups have sounded the alarm. But in a media landscape rife with misinformation, every image, every anecdote must be questioned — not to deny suffering, but to preserve the truth.

    Because when lies masquerade as evidence, the real victims — whether Palestinian civilians or the truth itself — are the ones who suffer the most.

  • Trump Imposes 25% Tariff on India, Hints at Penalties for Russian Oil Purchases

    Trump Imposes 25% Tariff on India, Hints at Penalties for Russian Oil Purchases

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United States will impose a 25% tariff on goods from India, plus an additional import tax because of India’s purchasing of Russian oil, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

    India “is our friend,” Trump said on his Truth Social platform, but its tariffs on U.S. products “are far too high.”

    The Republican president added India buys military equipment and oil from Russia, enabling Moscow’s war in Ukraine. As a result, he intends to charge an additional “penalty” starting on Friday as part of the launch of his administration’s revised tariffs on multiple countries.

    Trump told reporters on Wednesday the two countries were still in the middle of negotiations on trade despite the tariffs slated to begin in a few days.

    “We’re talking to India now,” the president said. “We’ll see what happens.”

    The Indian government said Wednesday it’s studying the implications of Trump’s tariffs announcement.

    India and the U.S. have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a “fair, balanced and mutually beneficial” bilateral trade agreement over the last few months, and New Delhi remains committed to that objective, India’s Trade Ministry said in a statement.

    Trump’s view on tariffs

    Trump’s announcement comes after a slew of negotiated trade frameworks with the European Union, Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia — all of which he said would open markets for American goods while enabling the U.S. to raise tax rates on imports. The president views tariff revenues as a way to help offset the budget deficit increases tied to his recent income tax cuts and generate more domestic factory jobs.

    While Trump has effectively wielded tariffs as a cudgel to reset the terms of trade, the economic impact is uncertain as most economists expect a slowdown in U.S. growth and greater inflationary pressures as some of the costs of the taxes are passed along to domestic businesses and consumers.

    There’s also the possibility of more tariffs coming on trade partners with Russia as well as on pharmaceutical drugs and computer chips. 

    Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said Trump and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer would announce the Russia-related tariff rates on India at a later date.

    Tariffs face European pushback

    Trump’s approach of putting a 15% tariff on America’s long-standing allies in the EU is also generating pushback, possibly causing European partners as well as Canada to seek alternatives to U.S. leadership on the world stage.

    French President Emmanuel Macron said Wednesday in the aftermath of the trade framework that Europe “does not see itself sufficiently” as a global power, saying in a cabinet meeting that negotiations with the U.S. will continue as the agreement gets formalized.

    “To be free, you have to be feared,” Macron said. “We have not been feared enough. There is a greater urgency than ever to accelerate the European agenda for sovereignty and competitiveness.”

    Seeking a deeper partnership with India

    Washington has long sought to develop a deeper partnership with New Delhi, which is seen as a bulwark against China.

    ?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews
    President Donald Trump, front right, gestures as he walks down the stairs of Air Force One with his grandchildren, Spencer, left, and Chloe, back center, upon his arrival at Joint Base Andrews, Md., Tuesday, July 29, 2025. © AP Photo/Luis M. Alvarez

    Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has established a good working relationship with Trump, and the two leaders are likely to further boost cooperation between their countries. When Trump in February met with Modi, the U.S. president said that India would start buying American oil and natural gas.

    The new tariffs on India could complicate its goal of doubling bilateral trade with the U.S. to $500 billion by 2030. The two countries have had five rounds of negotiations for a bilateral trade agreement. While U.S. has been seeking greater market access and zero tariff on almost all its exports, India has expressed reservations on throwing open sectors such as agriculture and dairy, which employ a bulk of the country’s population for livelihood, Indian officials said.

    The Census Bureau reported that the U.S. ran a $45.8 billion trade imbalance in goods with India last year, meaning it imported more than it exported.

    At a population exceeding 1.4 billion people, India is the world’s largest country and a possible geopolitical counterbalance to China. India and Russia have close relations, and New Delhi has not supported Western sanctions on Moscow over its war in Ukraine.

    The new tariffs could put India at a disadvantage in the U.S. market relative to Vietnam, Bangladesh and, possibly, China, said Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations.

    “We are back to square one as Trump hasn’t spelled out what the penalties would be in addition to the tariff,” Sahai said. “The demand for Indian goods is bound to be hit.”

  • Google Engineer, 29, Killed in Freak Accident on Popular Yosemite Trail

    Google Engineer, 29, Killed in Freak Accident on Popular Yosemite Trail

    CALIFORNIA — A 29-year-old Google software engineer tragically lost her life earlier this month in a freak accident while hiking along a popular trail in Yosemite National Park, when a massive branch from one of the park’s iconic sequoia trees suddenly broke off and struck her.

    Angela Lin, a gifted and respected engineer who previously worked for Salesforce and most recently for Google, had been hiking through the Tuolumne Grove of Giant Sequoias on July 19 with her boyfriend, David Hua, and two friends when disaster struck.

    According to Hua, the group was walking along the well-trodden trail when they heard a loud crack from above. “One big branch struck Angela, and then there were a bunch of smaller ones directly behind me,” Hua told SFGate.

    By the time Hua opened his eyes after instinctively shutting them during the chaos, Lin was lying face-up on the ground, motionless, with blood pooling around her head. He immediately called 911 and performed CPR until a park ranger arrived to take over. Although an ambulance eventually reached the scene, Lin was never transported. Emergency responders said she likely died instantly from the blow.

    “It was just unimaginable that something like this could occur,” Hua said in a phone interview, his voice trembling. “On such a popular trail, too.”

    www linkedin com angelaslin utm 108932965
    Angela Lin, a 29-year-old software engineer at Google. © LinkedIn/Angela Lin

    A Promising Life Cut Short

    Angela Lin’s tragic death stunned both the tech and academic communities. She had earned her bachelor’s degree at the University of California, Berkeley, where she met Hua, and later completed her master’s in computer science at the University of Texas at Austin. She worked diligently through the ranks at Salesforce before joining Google, where she had been a software engineer for several years.

    “We lost a loved and respected member of our team,” a Google spokesperson told The Post. “We’re very saddened by this tragedy, and our hearts are with their family and loved ones.”

    Friends and former colleagues recalled Lin as exceptionally intelligent, warm, and humble. “Angela was obviously whip-smart, but she led with a simple and playful attitude,” said Ian Cook, a close friend from her Berkeley days. “That mix of confidence and humility put folks around her at ease.”

    Richard Zhang, a research scientist who shared lab time with Lin in undergrad, remembered her kindness during crunch periods. “She’d stay through the late nights before a paper deadline and thoughtfully treat us to chocolate to keep our spirits up,” he said.

    A Growing Pattern of Tragedy in Yosemite

    Lin’s death adds to a list of recent tragedies in Yosemite. Last summer, Grace Rohloff, a college student, died after slipping and falling 200 feet from the Half Dome cables during a storm. In October 2024, 22-year-old Australian hiker Harry Partington was crushed by a falling tree on the Four Mile Trail. In 2015, two high schoolers were killed by a falling oak branch while sleeping in a tent, and in 2012, a concessions worker died under similar circumstances during a windstorm.

    Yet what makes Lin’s case so uniquely unsettling is the complete lack of typical risk factors. Hua emphasized there was no wind, and Lin — known for her caution — had stayed on the trail and taken no dangerous detours.

    “The sad thing is that Angela is the most cautious person you can be,” said Hua. “She stays on trails. She never goes off trails. Usually when you hear about these incidents, someone is doing something dangerous — like playing in water or near a cliff. But that wasn’t her.”

    Frustration with Park Officials and Demand for Answers

    In the wake of the tragedy, the Tuolumne Grove trail was closed for about a week. Park officials say an investigation is ongoing, but according to Hua and Lin’s loved ones, communication from the National Park Service has been minimal.

    “We are seeking more information from the park service regarding this incident,” said Hua, “especially around trail safety, maintenance, awareness of problematic trees on popular trails, and future prevention of similar incidents.”

    Yosemite public affairs officer Scott Gediman confirmed to SFGate that the investigation remains active. However, the park has not publicly addressed specific safety concerns related to the tree or trail.

    The lack of transparency has left not only Lin’s loved ones but also bystanders emotionally shaken. One tourist who witnessed the incident created a Reddit thread titled “Tuolumne Grove Incident 7/19,” writing: “I am a tourist, but was on the scene of an extremely tragic freak accident… and it has been haunting me. I can’t stop thinking about it.”

    The user added: “It hits so so hard because they were doing nothing wrong or careless… Life can be so cruel.”

    A Devastating Loss for Many

    As friends, coworkers, and strangers alike try to come to terms with the sudden loss of a young, vibrant life, Angela Lin is being remembered not only for her technical brilliance but also her kindness, humor, and steady presence.

    “She was just the most thoughtful, grounded person,” said Hua. “We’ve been best friends since college. Her death is a devastating loss — to me, to her family, to everyone who knew her.”

  • Intel to Lay Off 15% of Workforce, Cancel Billions in Projects as Part of Strategic Rebound

    Intel to Lay Off 15% of Workforce, Cancel Billions in Projects as Part of Strategic Rebound

    Intel Corporation has unveiled a sweeping restructuring plan aimed at reversing its declining market position amid rapid competition in artificial intelligence (AI) and semiconductor manufacturing. The company announced it will lay off 15% of its global workforce—approximately 24,000 jobs—and cancel multi‑billion‑dollar factory projects in Europe and the U.S.

    In its Q2 2025 results, Intel posted $12.86–$12.9 billion in revenue, slightly ahead of consensus expectations, yet absorbed a sharp net loss of $441 million to $2.9 billion, largely due to $1.9 billion in restructuring charges and impairments. This marked a steep fall from the small profit it reported a year earlier.

    CEO Lip‑Bu Tan, who took charge in March 2025, emphasized that the firm will no longer support expansion without confirmed customer demand—declaring an end to the era of “blank check” spending on chip fabs and platform development (notably 14A and 18A process technologies) until demand is locked in.

    The layoff targets include middle management across all divisions, shrinking Intel’s headcount from ~109,000 in 2024 down to ~75,000 by end‑2025, reflecting a ~15% reduction globally. A specific focus is on Intel Foundry, with an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 roles impacted globally (roughly 15–20% of that division), spanning technicians, engineers, and factory support roles. No severance or voluntary buyouts will be offered, with decisions based on performance and strategic alignment. Intel has officially canceled planned fab projects in Germany and Poland, delayed construction in Ohio, and shut down packaging operations in Costa Rica—moving some functions to Vietnam and Malaysia.

    Intel is doubling down on core pivot areas:

    Strategic AreaDetails
    AI and Foundry BusinessFoundry revenue grew 3% in Q2 to $4.4B—but Intel remains far behind TSMC in client traction.
    Technology DevelopmentDelay or pause in the rollout of next-gen nodes—like 14A and 18A—if anchor customers aren’t secured.
    Organizational StreamlineReduction of management by ~50%, with a full return-to-office mandate starting September to.

    Analysts warn the AI boom has largely benefited Nvidia, AMD, and TSMC—not Intel, which has yet to meaningfully capitalize on generative AI demand.

    Intel shares fell nearly 4% after hours following the earnings call—closing the day up ~13% year-to-date. Despite outperforming on revenue expectations, the net loss and aggressive restructuring plan rattled investors.

    Analysts at Benchmark Research maintain a “Hold” rating, citing uncertainty over market share recovery and external foundry reliance if internal execution continues to falter.

    “These decisions reflect painful but necessary discipline,” said an analyst at Moor Insights. “Intel must align its operations to real demand—or risk bleeding further cash chasing future tech without customer backing.”

    Others emphasize the broader context:

    The company’s earlier $1.6B Q2 loss under former CEO Pat Gelsinger had already prompted a 15,000‑job cut in 2024—part of a longer pattern of retreat from leading-edge ambitions without roadmap delivery.


    Faced with mounting losses and faltering leadership in AI chip making, Intel’s dramatic cost-cutting and strategic reset represent a high-stakes gamble. By halting unchecked expansion and refocusing on demand-driven investments, CEO Lip‑Bu Tan aims to forge a leaner, more disciplined Intel. Success will hinge on execution—and whether the company can reclaim relevance in a silicon boom it largely missed.