Back in October, Google ended software support for the original and second-generation Nest Learning Thermostats. On the surface, that doesnt seem totally unreasonable, considering those original devices are roughly 14 years old at this point. If you have one, you can still use it as a thermostat, but it will no longer connect to the internet. As a result, you cant connect to it using the Nest or Google Home apps.
That may not seem like a big deal, except that the single greatest thing about using a Nest Thermostat wasnt the fact that it would learn your habits and create routines, or that it would detect when youre not home and adjust accordingly. No, the best thing about using a Nest Thermostat was that you could open the app and turn on the furnace before you headed home from the company Christmas party. The best thing about Nest was that it took the single most boring thing in your home and made it smart.
The problem is, those devices are still working just fine. In many homes, the hardware works exactly as well as it did the day it was installed. I know this to be true because ours is one of them. We have a second-generation Nest Learning Thermostat and the only thing wrong with it is that Google decided to kill its absolute best feature.
The smart-home dream
Nest was started in 2011 by Tony Fadell, whose primary design accomplishment before that was inventing the iPod. The idea was simpletake the most boring household hardware device and turn it into magic. The original Nest Learning Thermostat was both incredibly well designed and also magically smart. It learned user behavior, saved energy, and looked good doing it. Nest quickly became the most recognizable name in the beginning days of the smart-home market.
Google bought Nest in 2014 for $3.2 billion, signaling how important the company believed the connected home would become. For a while, Nest operated semi-independently, expanding into products such as smoke detectors, cameras, and doorbells.
Eventually, Google folded Nest back into its hardware division. That shift brought tighter integration with Google Assistant and a unified smart-home platform, but it also marked the end of Nest as a standalone brand with its own roadmap.
Google changes direction
Over the past decade, Google has reworked the Nest lineup into a broader Home ecosystem. Some early devices aged out as the company consolidated platforms, rewrote its smart-home APIs, and shifted from Works With Nest to Works With Google Home.
Support challenges for aging hardware, combined with Googles push for Matter-compatible, Assistant-driven devices, led to a gradual pruning of Nests earliest products. Today, Nest is no longer the flagship brand for smart homes. Instead, its more of a subbrand within Googles hardware portfolio.
Because technology is apparently obligated to continue to march on, Google says that the oldest Nest Thermostats are basically obsolete. Sure, theyll continue to worksort of. You can manually control the temperature on the thermostat, whichby the wayis also something you can do on much older thermostats. With the Nest, however, you just have to overlook the part about not connecting to the internet, which is pretty much the main reason you bought it in the first place.
Just dont break things that work fine
Look, I dont know what the lifespan should be for a smart thermostat, but I do know that for as long as it continues to operate, it should do the thing you were promised when you bought it.
I get that there are reasons that companies end support for older devices. At some point, you cant continue to develop software for devices that dont have the hardware to run it. According to Google, It has become increasingly challenging to continue to update these products given the early hardware.
The thing is, a thermostat doesnt really need updates. It doesnt need new software. It literally just needs to do the thing it did the day you bought it. Whichin this caseis to control your heat and air conditioning in the app.
Thats the promise Nest sold from the beginning, and breaking that promise comes at a high cost. In fact, Id argue the cost is so high that breaking it is the one thing no company should ever do.
Jason Aten
This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc.
Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Ads already follow you wherever you go. Theyre on your TV, your phone, your train careven on your airline tray table and escalator.
Now, theyll soon be in your chatbot, too. OpenAI announced last week that it will begin selling ads in ChatGPT.
The move opens up a potentially massive revenue source for OpenAIand is a huge threat to Googles world-dominating ad empire.
Heres why.
ChatGPT, Sell Me a Toaster
For years, OpenAI has resisted the siren song of advertising and has kept its chatbot largely open to the world. Thats gone well for the company.
Offering a massively valuable product for free has been, unsurprisingly, popular. ChatGPT now has a reported 900 million monthly users.
Of those, 95% are on the companys Free or Go tiers, which means they either pay $8 per month for the service or nothing at all.
Providing cutting-edge AI to a tenth of humanity, though, is exquisitely expensive: OpenAI expects to burn through $115 billion in the next few years.
To raise that kind of money, OpenAI needs to prove that it can monetize its vast trove of free users. Advertising, traditionally, has been the way to make money from nonpaying eyeballs.
Indeed, in its announcement, OpenAI confirmed that its ads will initially be limited to Free and Go users. They will appear below organic answers and be specifically identified as advertising.
The company says that the content of ads wont determine the answers that ChatGPT givesif you ask it for a toaster recommendation, for example, it wont write glowingly about a toaster brand that happens to be an ad partner.
But if you ask the bot how to fix your broken toasterand it turns out your current appliance is a lost causeChatGPT might present you with paid ads for a replacement.
A Better Mailbox
Showing contextual ads beside organic search results is hardly new: Thats been Googles business model for decades, and it makes the tech giant hundreds of billions per year.
Whats different, though, is how OpenAI can target its ads.
Matching ads to a specific user is hard. Google has traditionally done it by gathering vast troves of data about all of us, and then mining that data for insights on what we might buy.
In some cases, its obvious what ad Google should show. If you search flights to Aruba, youre probably traveling to Aruba, and the company can profitably show you a bazillion ads for Aruba hotels, Aruba rental cars, and the like for the next several months.
But more than half of Google queries are navigational. These are purely transactional phrases that people type into the search engine in order to find something else. Many more queries are short and ambiguous.
Looking at my own recent Google search history, for example, I typed in queries including Sonicare skip slow start, Rancho San Ramon Community Park, and what minor American celebrities are big in Japan.
Good luck figuring out what ads to serve me based on that.
In contrast, when people chat with ChatGPT, they tend to do so for a long time. The average session with the chatbot reportedly lasts 12 minutes and 24 seconds.
Thats long enough to exchange a lot of information. And all that information gives the bot a strong sense of what the user wantsor might want to buy.
In a recent session with ChatGPT, for example, I had a detailed conversation about whether a specific piece of lumber was pressure-treated, and how this might affect my ability to use it in my laser cutter.
From our long chat, the bot now knows the exact project Im working on (replacing a mailbox). If ads were live, it could use that context to try to sell me all manner of related things: better lumber, metal mailbox bases, construction adhesive, and the like.
And it gets even better. ChatGPT knows Im building a mailbox. But with its Memory function, it remembers from our previous chats the exact model of laser cutter I have, where I live, and much else about me.
That would potentially allow the bot to serve me ads not just for lumber, but also for lumber that works in my laser cutter, would hold up well to the climate in California where I live, and would be easy for me to work with, given my exceedingly limited patience and skill for woodworking.
A Shot Across the Bow
OpenAIs exquisite knowledge of its users needs means it can likely sell ChatGPT ads for a premium. And because so many people use the bot, its potential ad market is massive.
That makes OpenAI a huge threat to Google, the dominant player in the digital advertising market.
The search engine processes about 8.5 billion queries per day. Since the average person searches Google about four times per day, that means Google Search likely has around 2.5 billion active users.
Thats roughly triple OpenAIs user base. But OpenAI is still growing aggressively. And again, the companys users spend far longer with ChatGPT than Googles users spend on its search engine: 12 minutes versus as little as five seconds for a Google search.
The combination of a gigantic audience and lots of engagement timeplus a huge amount of targeting datameans OpenAI has all the tools it needs to threaten Googles ad dominance in very short order.
And theres precedent for a new entrant to the ad world gaining ground quickly. In 2019, Amazon had only $12.63 billion in ad revenue. But 2024, that number swelled to $56.21 billion and is still growing. And thats with far fewer users than OpenAI.
Make no mistake, then. OpenAIs announcement is a shot across Googles bow.
The company says its ad program is still in a testing phase. But so was ChatGPT when the company launched it.
That OpenAI product completely changed the fabric of the digital world, altering how artificial intelligence is built and sold. OpenAIs ads could soon do the same for the way its monetized.
CoreWeave and Nvidia announced Monday that the AI chipmaker has invested another $2 billion as part of a plan to accelerate the buildout of more than five gigawatts of artificial-intelligence (AI) factories by 2030. That’s on top of its previous $3.3 billion investment.
CoreWeave is a cloud computing platform focused on artificial intelligence.
According to a release from Nvidia, the chipmaker bought CoreWeave Class A common stock at $87.20 a share, which “reflects it’s confidence in CoreWeaves business, team and growth strategy as a cloud platform built on NVIDIA infrastructure.”
The news sent shares of CoreWeave, Inc. (Nasdaq: CRWV) up 12% in Monday morning trading; at the time of this writing, in midday trading, it was trading up over 9%.
“Demand for AI continues to grow exponentially and the need for compute has never been greater, the companies said in a joint statement.
AI is entering its next frontier and driving the largest infrastructure buildout in human history, Jensen Huang, founder and CEO of Nvidia, added. CoreWeaves deep AI factory expertise, platform software, and unmatched execution velocity are recognized across the industry. Together, were racing to meet extraordinary demand for NVIDIA AI factoriesthe foundation of the AI industrial revolution.
The deal does two things: It gives CoreWeave “early access” to Nvidia’s new central processing unit (CPU) and other products; and pits Nvidia up against Intel and Advanced Micro Devices as direct competitors, according to a report from LinkedIn News.
Coreweave financials
CoreWeave became a publicly traded company in March, debuting on the Nasdaq exchangeafter raising billions, in part from Nvidia, per CNBC.
In November, the company reported third-quarter 2025 earnings with revenue beating analyst expectations at $1.36 billion (versus $1.29 billion), but reported negative earnings per share (EPS) of 22 cents. Operating income was also down 56% to $51.9 million. That, in addition to high infrastructure costs, third-party partner delays, and high debt, caused its share price to drop at the time.
For weeks, the leaders of Minnesotas most prominent businesses have remained tight-lipped as thousands of ICE agents have flooded the Twin Cities, where those agents have raided residential neighborhoods, detained employees from local businesses, and taken multiple schoolchildren in broad daylight.
Now, over the weekend, more than 60 Minnesota-based CEOs finally spoke out against ICE in a brief collective letter.
The 200-word letter was released on January 25 by Minnesotas Chamber of Commerce. It came the day after a U.S. Border Patrol officer shot and killed Minneapolis resident and ICU nurse Alex Pretti, and weeks after the death of Minneapolis writer Renee Good, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent on January 7.
In the letter, the business leaders call for an immediate deescalation of tensions, and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.
But, for many Minnesotans, this response is too little, too late.
A culture of corporate silence
Just a few years ago, it was fairly commonplace for major companies to speak out about social justiceto varying degrees of actual commitment and impact.
In the summer of 2020, during President Trumps first term, Minnesota-based companies including General Mills, Target, Best Buy, Cargill, UnitedHealth Group, 3M, and Land OLakes all offered statements in the immediate wake of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. But now, during Trumps second term, corporate silence has become the norm as companies opt to remain mute on critical issues rather than attracting the Trump administrations ire.
Until recently, the above companies have failed to speak up amidst large-scale ICE raids in their home state. Earlier this month, Fast Company writer Joe Berkowitz reached out to all of them regarding ICEs presence in Minneapolis, and received radio silence. Meanwhile, small businesses in the community were actively responding to the situation by condemning ICE and setting up fundraisers for affected residents.
Now, though, it seems that major Minnesotan companies finally feel that silence is no longer a viable path forward. Their new letter was signed by CEOs from all of the aforementioned companies, as well as others like Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Mayo Clinic, the Minnesota Vikings, Xcel Energy, and more.
“The business community in Minnesota prides itself in providing leadership and solving problems to ensure a strong and vibrant state,” the letter starts. “The recent challenges facing our state have created widespread disruption and tragic loss of life.”
It continues, “In this difficult moment for our community, we call for peace and focused cooperation among local, state and federal leaders to achieve a swift and durable solution that enables families, businesses, our employees, and communities across Minnesota to resume our work to build a bright and prosperous future.
Notably, the letter never actually references ICE or U.S. Border Patrol by name, and only acknowledges Pretti’s death as “yesterday’s tragic news.”
Too little, too late
So far, some commenters online have expressed their gratitude to these companies for coming forward. But the overwhelming response has been dominated by people who are incredulous at the statements timingand its lack of direct language.
Id argue this isnt even breaking silence, one comment under a post from The Minnesota Star Tribune reads. This statement essentially says nothing. They are just speaking out to avoid criticism.
A second comment noted, “It reads with the subtext ‘please lets all calm down so we can make money again’ PASS.”
And a third user added, Yall have the resources to do more than write a letter. Pause operations for a week, pay your employees anyway, go to DC and take an actual risk. Small businesses stood 10 toes down and lost revenue on Friday while yall stayed open. Leadership isnt just about bts conversations . . . its also about using your leverage. So use it.
The Wienermobiles are coming back for a bite at the Brickyard in May, giving them another chance to relish the spotlight of racing’s biggest weekend.
Oscar Mayer announced Sunday all six of its famed street-ready vehicles will compete for the second straight year on Indianapolis Motor Speedway’s historic 2.5-mile oval. The Wienie 500 is scheduled for May 22 during the track’s annual Carburation Day festivities.
Last year’s race was such a hit, organizers wanted to give fans a second round to savor the flavor of a light-hearted competition just two days before IndyCar’s marquis race the Indianapolis 500.
The presentation will have a familiar look for fans who watched last year’s inaugural race.
Each Wienermobile will feature toppings representing an American regional favorite while carrying carry custom decals. Drivers will don Hotdogger racing suits while the iconic Wiener Song plays and the champ drives into wieners circle.
Slaw Dog, which represents the Southeast, will try to prove it is beefy enough to defend last year’s crown. Four other regional favorites also are expected to return Chi Dog (Midwest), New York Dog (East), Chili Dog (South) and Seattle Dog (Northwest).
But the Sonoran Dog may be replaced after failing to cut the mustard in 2025.
Fans can choose the final entrant from a menu of seven possibilities, including the Sonoran Dog, by visiting Instagram in the first Pick Your Dog Wienie 500 bracket. Updates will be provided on the Instagram account or on TikTok.
The response to the first Wienie 500 was overwhelming, and we heard the fans loud and clear that they were hungry for more, Kelsey Rice, Oscar Mayer brand communications director said in a statement. This year, were supercharging the experience, delivering an even bigger, bolder and more unforgettable event that puts the fans at the forefront. With amplified engagement, intensified rivalries and more surprises in store, were giving the people what they want an unparalleled live experience that will leave them craving more.
So many things went wrong last Jan. 29 to contribute to the deadliest plane crash on American soil since 2001 that the National Transportation Safety Board isn’t likely to identify a single cause of the collision between an airliner and an Army helicopter near Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people at its hearing Tuesday.
Instead, their investigators will detail what they found that played a role in the crash, and the board will recommend changes to help prevent a similar tragedy. Last week, the Federal Aviation Administration already took the temporary restrictions it imposed after the crash and made them permanent to ensure planes and helicopters won’t share the same airspace again around Reagan National Airport.
Family members of victims hope those suggestions won’t be ignored the same way many past NTSB recommendations have been. Tim Lilley, whose son Sam was the first officer on the American Airlines plane, said he hopes officials in Congress and the administration will make changes now instead of waiting for another disaster.
Instead of writing aviation regulation in blood, lets start writing it in data, said Lilley, who is a pilot himself and earlier in his career flew Black Hawk helicopters in the Washington area. Because all the data was there to show this accident was going to happen. This accident was completely preventable.
Over the past year, the NTSB has already highlighted a number of the factors that contributed to the crash including a poorly designed helicopter route past Reagan Airport, the fact that the Black Hawk was flying 78 feet (23.7 meters) higher than it should have been, the warnings that the FAA ignored in the years beforehand and the Army’s move to turn off a key system that would have broadcast the helicopters location more clearly.
The D.C. plane crash was the first in a number of high-profile crashes and close calls throughout 2025 that alarmed the public, but the total number of crashes last year was actually the lowest since the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020 with 1,405 crashes nationwide.
Experts say flying remains the safest way to travel because of all the overlapping layers of precautions built into the system, but too many of those safety measures failed at the same time last Jan. 29.
Here is some of what we have learned about the crash:
The helicopter route didn’t ensure enough separation
The route along the Potomac River the Black Hawk was following that night allowed for helicopters and planes to come within 75 feet (23 meters) of each other when a plane was landing on the airport’s secondary runway that typically handles less than 5% of the flights landing at Reagan. And that distance was only ensured when the helicopter stuck to flying along the bank of the river, but the official route didn’t require that.
Normally, air traffic controllers work to keep aircraft at least 500 feet (152 meters) apart to keep them safe, so the scant separation on Route 4 posed what NTSB Chairwoman Jennifer Homendy called an intolerable risk to flight safety.
The controllers at Reagan also had been in the habit of asking pilots to watch out for other aircraft themselves and maintain visual separation as they tried to squeeze in more planes to land on what the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority has called the busiest runway in the country. The FAA halted that practice after the crash.
That night, a controller twice asked the helicopter pilots whether they had the jet in sight, and the pilots said they did and asked for visual separation approval so they could use their own eyes to maintain distance. But at the investigative hearings last summer, board members questioned how well the crew could spot the plane while wearing night vision goggles and whether the pilots were even looking in the right spot.
The Black Hawk was flying too high
The American Airlines plane flying from Wichita, Kansas, collided with the helicopter 278 feet (85 meters) above the river, but the Black Hawk was never supposed to fly above 200 feet (61 meters) as it passed by the airport, according to the official route.
Before investigators revealed how high the helicopter was flying, Tim Lilley was asking tough questions about it at some of the first meetings NTSB officials had with the families. His background as a pilot gave him detailed knowledge of the issues.
We had a moral mandate because we had such an in-depth insight into what happened. We didnt want to become advocates, but we could not shirk the responsibility, said Lilley, who started meeting with top lawmakers in Congress, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Army officials not long after the crash to push for changes.
The NTSB has said the Black Hawk pilots may not have realized how high the helicopter was because the barometric altimeter they were relying on was reading 80 to 100 feet (24 to 30 meters) lower than the altitude registered by the flight data recorder.
Investigators tested out the altimeters of three other Black Hawks of the same model from the same Army unit and found similar discrepancies.
Past warnings and alarming data were ignored
FAA controllers were warning about the risks all the helicopter traffic around Reagan airport created at least since 2022.
And the NTSB found there had been 85 near misses between planes and helicopters around the airport in the three years before the crash along with more than 15,000 close proximity events. Pilots reported collision alarms going off in their cockpits at least once a month.
Officials refused to add a warning to helicopter charts urging pilots to use caution when they used the secondary runway at Reagan the jet was trying to use before the collision.
Rachel Feres said it was hard to hear about all the known concerns that were never addressed before the crash that killed her cousin Peter Livingston and his wife Donna and two young daughters, Everly and Alydia, who were both promising figure skaters.
It became very quickly clear that this crash should never have happened, Feres said. And as someone who is not particularly familiar with aviation and how our aviation system works, we were just hearing things over and over again that I think really, really shocked people, really surprised people.
Josh Funk, AP transportation writer
Your watch says you had three hours of deep sleep. Should you believe it?Millions of people rely on phone apps and wearable devices like rings, smartwatches and sensors to monitor how well they’re sleeping, but these trackers don’t necessarily measure sleep directly. Instead, they infer states of slumber from signals like heart rate and movement, raising questions about how reliable the information is and how seriously it should be taken.The U.S. sleep-tracking devices market generated about $5 billion in 2023 and is expected to double in revenue by 2030, according to market research firm Grand View Research. As the devices continue to gain popularity, experts say it is important to understand what they can and cannot tell you, and how their data should be used.Here’s a look at the technology and why one expert thinks its full potential has yet to be realized.
What your sleep tracker actually measures
Whether it’s an Apple Watch, a Fitbit, an Oura Ring or one of innumerable other competitors, health and fitness trackers largely take the same basic approach by recording the wearer’s movements and heart rate while at rest, according to Daniel Forger, a University of Michigan math professor who researches the science behind sleep wearables.The algorithms used by major brands have become highly accurate for determining when someone is asleep, Forger said. The devices are also somewhat helpful for estimating sleep stages, though an in-lab study would be more precise, he said.“If you really want to know definitively how much non-REM sleep you’re having versus REM sleep, that’s where the in-lab studies really excel,” Forger said.
The sleep numbers that matter most
Dr. Chantale Branson, a neurologist and professor at the Morehouse School of Medicine, said she frequently has patients showing up with sleep scores from fitness trackers in hand, sometimes fixated on granular details such as how much REM sleep they got on a certain night.Branson says those patients are taking the wrong approach: the devices help highlight trends over time but should not be viewed as a definitive measure of one’s sleep health. Nor should any single night’s data be seen as significant.“We would have believed them with or without the device and worked on trying to figure out why they can’t sleep and that is what the wearables do not do,” she said.Branson said she thinks people who check their sleep statistics every morning would be better served by spending their efforts on “sleep hygiene” such as creating a relaxing bedtime routine, avoiding screens before bed and making sure their sleep environment is comfortable. She advises those concerned about their sleep to consult a clinician before spending money on a wearable.Forger takes a more favorable view toward the devices, which he says help keep the overlooked importance of sleep front of mind. He recommends them even for people without significant sleep issues, saying they can offer insights that help users fine-tune their routines and feel more alert during the day.“Seeing if your biological clock is in sync is a huge benefit because even if you’re giving yourself the right amount of time, if you’re sleeping at the wrong times, the sleep won’t be as efficient,” Forger said.
How sleep data can drive better habits
Kate Stoye, an Atlanta-area middle school teacher, bought an Oura Ring last summer, having heard positive things from friends who used it as a fertility tracker: “It’s so accurate,” she said. Stoye found the ring to be just as helpful with tracking her sleep. After noticing that the few nights she drank alcohol coincided with poorer sleep quality, she decided to give up alcohol.“I don’t see much reason to drink if I know that it’s going to affect how I feel,” said Stoye, who always wears her device except when she is playing tennis or needs to charge it.Another trend she says she detected in the ring’s data: the importance of not eating too late if she wants to get good rest.“I always struggle with going to bed, and it’s often because I eat late at night,” Stoye said. “I know that about myself, and it knows it too.”
When sleep tracking becomes a problem
Mai Barreneche, who works in advertising in New York City, used to wear her Oura Ring constantly. She said it helped her develop good sleep habits and encouraged her to maintain a daily morning exercise regimen. But as a metric-driven person, she became “obsessed” enough with her nightly sleep scores that it began to cause her anxiety a modern condition that researchers have dubbed “orthosomnia.”“I remember I would go to bed thinking about the score I was going to get in the morning,” Barreneche said.Barreneche decided not to wear her ring on a beach vacation a few years ago, and when she returned home, she never put it back on. She said she has maintained the good habits the device pointed her toward, but no longer wants the stress of monitoring her nightly scores.Branson, of the Morehouse School of Medicine, said she’s observed similar score-induced anxiety as a recurring issue for some patients, particularly those who set goals to achieve a certain amount of REM sleep or who shared their nightly scores with friends using the same device. Comparing sleep types and stages is ill-advised since individual needs vary by age, genetics and other factors, she said.“These devices are supposed to help you,” Branson said. “And if you feel anxious or worried or frustrated about it, then it’s not helpful, and you should really talk to a professional.”
The future of wearables
Forger thinks the promise of wearables has been underestimated, with emerging research suggesting the devices could one day be designed to help detect infections before symptoms appear and to flag sleep pattern changes that may signal the onset of depression or an increased risk of relapse.“The body is making these really interesting and really important decisions that we’re not aware of to keep us healthy and active and alert at the right times of day,” he said. “If you have an infection, that rhythm very quickly starts to disappear because the body goes into overdrive to start fighting the infection. Those are the kind of things we can pick up.”The technology could be particularly useful in low-resource communities, where wearables could help health issues to be identified more quickly and monitored remotely without requiring access to doctors or specialized clinics, according to Forger.“There’s this really important story that’s about to come out: About just how understanding sleep rhythms and sleep architecture is going to generally improve our lives,” he said.
R.J. Rico and Emilie Megnien, Associated Press
The brothers operated in the glitz and glamour of the Hamptons and South Beach. Two were high-end real estate brokers dubbed “The A Team.” The third went to law school and ran their family’s private security firm, which caters to heads of state and the rich and famous.They frequented nightclubs, cruised on yachts and flew on private jets. One lived alongside celebrities and corporate titans on Manhattan’s Billionaires’ Row. The others had multimillion-dollar waterfront mansions in Miami.But behind their posh, peripatetic facade, prosecutors say, Tal, Oren and Alon Alexander known collectively as the Alexander Brothers were predators who sexually assaulted, trafficked and raped dozens of women from 2008 to 2021, often after incapacitating them with drugs and sometimes recording their crimes on video.The brothers met victims at nightclubs, parties and on dating apps, and recruited others for trips to ritzy locales, paying for their flights and lodging at high-end hotels or luxe vacation rentals before drugging and raping them, prosecutors said. In all, dozens of women have accused them of wrongdoing.Now, the brothers Tal, 39, and twins Alon and Oren, 38 face a reckoning that prosecutors say was more than a decade in the making: a sex-trafficking trial that could put them in prison for the rest of their lives.Opening statements are slated for Tuesday in the brothers’ trial in federal court in Manhattan, after they were delayed a day because of heavy snowfall over the weekend in New York.Oren and Tal Alexander, the real estate dealers who specialized in high-end properties in Miami, New York and Los Angeles, have pleaded not guilty, along with their brother Alon, who graduated from New York Law School before taking his position with the security firm.All three have been held without bail since their December 2024 arrests. They were indicted months after several women filed lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct.A spokesperson for the Alexander Brothers said they “categorically deny that anyone was drugged, assaulted, or coerced, and the government has presented no physical evidence, medical records, contemporaneous complaints, or objective proof to establish those claims.”“This case highlights a broader concern about how the federal sex-trafficking statute is being applied,” said the spokesperson, Juda Engelmayer. “Congress enacted that law to address force, coercion, and exploitation; not to retroactively criminalize consensual adult relationships through inference or narrative.”“As the defense has consistently said, allegations are not evidence,” Engelmayer added.The brothers’ attorneys have promised to show the jury of six men and six women that prosecutors have taken innocent romantic and sexual encounters and converted them into criminal activity through clever lawyering.Oren Alexander’s attorney, Marc Agnifilo, has said the defense plans to prove that witnesses have lied to the government and that their testimony can’t be trusted.Judge Valerie E. Caproni, who will preside over the trial, has rejected defense requests to toss out the charges or send the case to state court. The Alexanders’ lawyers have said the allegations against them resemble “date rape” crimes more commonly prosecuted in state courts, but Caproni disagreed.“That badly misrepresents the nature of the charges,” the judge wrote.Agnifilo has said the jury will hear evidence of group sex, threesomes and promiscuity. During jury selection last week, prospective jurors were asked questions related to sexual activity and sex crimes.“The case is about sex and sexuality,” said Agnifilo, who represented Sean “Diddy” Combs last year as the hip-hop mogul was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges but convicted on lesser prostitution-related counts.In court papers, the Alexander Brothers’ lawyers wrote that among the accusers they expect to testify at trial, they had located evidence “that undermines nearly every aspect of the alleged victims’ narratives.”Prosecutors have said their evidence will show that the brothers “have acted with apparent impunity forcibly raping women whenever they wanted to do so.”
Michael R. Sisak and Larry Neumeister, Associated Press
The European Union opened a formal investigation into Elon Musk’s social media platform X on Monday after his artificial intelligence chatbot Grok spewed nonconsensual sexualized deepfake images on the platform.European regulators also widened a separate, ongoing investigation into X’s recommendation systems after the platform said it would switch to Grok’s AI system to choose which posts users see.The scrutiny from Brussels comes after Grok sparked a global backlash by allowing users through its AI image generation and editing capabilities to undress people, putting females in transparent bikinis or revealing clothing. Researchers said some images appeared to include children. Some governments banned the service or issued warnings.The 27-nation EU’s executive said it was looking into whether X has done enough as required by the bloc’s digital regulations to contain the risks of spreading illegal content such as “manipulated sexually explicit images.”That includes content that “may amount to child sexual abuse material,” the European Commission said. These risks have now “materialized,” the commission said, exposing the bloc’s citizens to “serious harm.”Regulators will examine whether Grok is living up to its obligations under the Digital Services Act, the bloc’s wide-ranging rule book for keeping internet users safe from harmful content and products.In response to a request for comment, an X spokeswoman directed The Associated Press to an earlier statement that the company remains “committed to making X a safe platform for everyone” and that it has “zero tolerance” for child sexual exploitation, nonconsensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content.The X statement from Jan. 14 also said it would stop allowing users to depict people in “bikinis, underwear or other revealing attire,” but only in places where it has been deemed illegal.“Non-consensual sexual deepfakes of women and children are a violent, unacceptable form of degradation,” Henna Virkkunen, an executive vice president at the commission, said in a statement.“With this investigation, we will determine whether X has met its legal obligations under the DSA, or whether it treated rights of European citizens including those of women and children – as collateral damage of its service,” said Virkkunen, who oversees tech sovereignty, security and democracy.Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI launched Grok’s image tool last summer. But the problem began snowballing only late last month when Grok seemingly granted a large number of user requests to modify images posted by others. The problem was amplified both because Musk pitches his chatbot as an edgier alternative with fewer safeguards than rivals, and because Grok’s responses on X are publicly visible, and can therefore be easily spread.The EU investigation covers only Grok’s service on X, and not Grok’s website and standalone app. That’s because the DSA applies only to the biggest online platforms.There’s no deadline for the bloc to resolve the case, which could end in either X pledging to change its behavior or a hefty fine.In December Brussels issued X with a 120-million euro (then-$140 million) fine as part of the earlier ongoing DSA investigation, for shortcomings including blue checkmarks that broke the rules on “deceptive design practices” that risked exposing users to scams and manipulation.The bloc has also been scrutinizing X over allegations that Grok generated antisemitic material and has asked the site for more information.Malaysia and Indonesia blocked access to Grok earlier this month in response to the controversy, becoming the first countries to do so.On Friday, Malaysian authorities said they lifted the temporary restriction after the company implemented additional security and preventive measures, without giving further details. Malaysian regulators said they met last week with X’s representatives and would continue to monitor the situation.__AP writer Eileen Ng in Kuala Lumpur contributed to this report
Kelvin Chan, AP Business Writer
On Sunday, the price of gold hit a major milestone: it surpassed the $5,000-per-ounce mark for the first time in history. But while golds price rise is a good thing for investors in the precious metal, it may also signal broader investor anxiety about the marketsand the world. Heres what you need to know about golds surge.
Gold trades above $5,000 for the first time ever
On Sunday, gold surpassed $5,000 per troy ouncethe first time it has ever done so. The precious yellow metal climbed to $5,107 on Monday morning before paring back slightly to its current price of $5,082 per ounce, as of this writing.
Golds most recent milestone is just the latest example of the good run the precious metal has had since 2025. During that calendar year, golds price surged 64%its highest single-year gain since 1979.
And 2026 is, so far, shaping up to be another stellar year for gold. Already this month, the precious metal has hit milestone after milestone, surpassing its 2025 all-time high on January 6, 2026, when it reached $4,497.20 per ounce.
Less than a week later, gold crossed the $4,600 mark. And on January 20, gold crossed the $4,800 barrier for the first time. It then took gold just five days to cross the $5,000 threshold for the first time in history.
Whats behind golds recent rise?
The short answer is Trump. But the more nuanced answer is uncertainty.
Gold is a safe-haven assetan asset that offers relative stability in times of economic uncertainty or geopolitical upheaval. During these times, traditional assets like stocks and digital assets like cryptocurrencies can be, and often are, highly volatile.
When investors are uncertain about the world or the economy, they tend to pull their money out of these types of assets to lock in any gains they have made, and then put the proceeds of those sales into a more stable asset like gold.
2026 has begun with massive geopolitical and economic uncertainty, primarily due to the decisions of President Donald Trump. The year kicked off with the U.S. attack on Venezuela, which Trump ordered to capture the countrys president. Almost immediately after that, Trump set his sights on acquiring Greenland.
At the same time, Trump also threatened tariffs on eight European countries that publicly spoke against the presidents desire to acquire Greenland, which would potentially trigger a trade war. It was only last week that Trump finally backed down from his threats to acquire Greenland.
Domestically, things have been just as chaotic in America. This month alone, ICE officers have shot and killed two American citizens in Minnesota, igniting fierce protests and condemnation from Americans across the country. But in news that has investors specifically worried, Trumps Justice Department has also opened a criminal investigation into Fed chair Jerome Powell, which many believe is politically motivated due to Powell not lowering interest rates as fast as the president wants him to.
All these events have created significant uncertainty about the world and the economy, prompting investors to seek assets they can park their money in that are historically less volatile than stocks.
Silver rising, too
The price of gold isnt the only precious metal rising due to all this uncertainty. Silver is also up significantly since 2026 began.
As of the time of this writing, the price of silver is currently trading at around $108.50 per ounce after hitting an earlier all-time high of above $109. It was only last Tuesday that silver hit a then all-time high price of $95 per ounce.
Over the past 12 months, silver has surged nearly 250%, and since 2026 began, the precious metal has risen a staggering 40% in the first 26 days of the year.
