Starbucks workers took legal action against the company on Wednesday over its newly imposed dress code. The workers accused Starbucks of refusing to reimburse employees for expenses related to its new dress code, thereby breaking the law.
The workers, backed by the union, filed class-action lawsuits in Illinois and Colorado, and filed complaints with California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency in a push for the agency to penalize the coffee chain. According to the lawsuits, Colorado state law prohibits employers from imposing expenses on workers without the workers’ consent. Meanwhile, several plaintiffs say they asked their employer to reimburse them for funds they spent on new clothing, but their requests were denied.
Starbucks announced the changes to the company uniform earlier this year as part of its “Back to Starbucks” initiative. It said starting in May, workers would be required to wear solid black shirts under their aprons, and khaki, black, or blue denim bottoms. At the time, Starbucks said it would give each employee two free T-shirts. While the uniform has remained largely the same over the years, in 2016, the company loosened its dress code to allow for different shirt colors, as well as brightly colored hair, and hats. Some employees said the changes lifted morale and allowed for greater freedom of expression on the job.
This year, that freedom of expression was rolled back. By updating our dress code, we can deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience that will also bring simpler and clearer guidance to our partners, which means they can focus on what matters most, crafting great beverages and fostering connections with customers, the company said in an April 14 statement.
However, the union has expressed anger that changes to the dress code are “restrictive” and happened without input from the baristas it affects. Likewise, workers feel there are other more important issues Starbucks should be focused on. In a September statement, Strategic Organizing Center Research Director Joan Moriarty said that a new union survey found huge issues with understaffing in Starbucks stores, with nine out of 10 respondents saying it’s a concern. “The results of our survey demonstrate how Brian Niccols plan for Starbucks isnt coming close to getting the company back on track for its workers and customers, Moriarty said.
Moriarty added, Starbucks baristas and shift supervisors told us loud and clear that theyre still struggling with understaffing, erratic scheduling, and an unsustainable pace of work. Its long past time for Starbucks to listen to its workers, return to the bargaining table, and get to work on a real comeback strategy for Starbucks.
For the past three years, the union has been pushing for a contract that includes higher wages, guaranteed hours, and better staffing. Jasmine Leli, a Starbucks barista and union bargaining delegate, said in a previous statement, Instead of addressing the most pressing issues baristas have been raising for years, Starbucks is prioritizing a limiting dress code that wont improve the companys operation.
Leli added, Theyre forcing baristas to pay for new clothes when were struggling as it is on Starbucks wages and without guaranteed hours.
At the time, a Starbucks spokesperson told Fast Company that the union would be better served if it put the same effort into coming back to the table to finalize a reasonable contract” than attacking the dress code.
The U.S. may soon scrap the penal import tariff on Indian goods and also cut the reciprocal tariff to 10-15% from the existing 25%, India’s Chief Economist Adviser V. Anantha Nageswaran said on Thursday.
“My personal confidence is that in the next couple of months, if not earlier, we will see a resolution to at least to the extra penal tariff of 25%,” Nageswaran said at an event in Kolkata.
“It may also be the case that reciprocal tariff of 25% may also come down to levels, which we were earlier anticipating somewhere between 10% and 15%.”
India and the U.S. held “positive” and “forward-looking” trade discussions on Tuesday, New Delhi said, raising hopes for a breakthrough after President Donald Trump imposed punitive tariffs on the South Asian nation for buying Russian oil.
Trump slapped a punitive 25% levy on India from August 27, doubling overall tariffs to 50%, as part of Washington’s efforts to step up pressure on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine.
Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said they spoke by phone on Tuesday with the U.S. president saying he thanked Modi for his help in ending the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Neither gave any detail of any agreement on Ukraine, but the call appeared to be a sign of further thawing of U.S.-Indian tensions, which blew up in recent months raising questions about the future relationship between the partners, which share concerns about China.
Trump also struck a more conciliatory tone in statements last week and expressed optimism that they could finalise a trade deal.
Indian stocks extended gains after Nageswaran’s comments on easing trade tensions, with the benchmark Nifty 50 hitting one-week highs and notching it’s highest close since July 9.
Swati Bhat, Reuters
The remaining late-night talk show writers have their work cut out for them in coming up with material suitable for Thursday nights episode. And every other episode in the foreseeable future.
Now that ABC has yanked Jimmy Kimmel Live! off the air, following a conservative pressure campaign over a recent monologue, its unclear what Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon and the hosts of The Daily Show can even say about the incident without crossing an undefined line of offense.
On Monday night, Kimmel kicked off his show with a monologue touching on the latest developments in the reaction to Charlie Kirks assassination.
We hit some new lows over the weekend, the host said, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
Kimmel went on to lampoon Trump for his seeming lack of grief over Kirk, airing a widely circulated clip from last Friday, in which the president quickly pivoted from a reporters question about Kirk to happily hyping up renovations at the White House.
The reaction was quiet, until suddenly it wasnt.
Anyone not paying close enough attention to right-wing influencers over the following 36 hours might not have even noticed. There certainly wasnt the kind of instant widespread backlash that led to ABC canceling Roseanne in 2017 roughly eight hours after the shows creator and star tweeted an arguably racist remark about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Primarily pushing the backlash was Benny Johnson, a right-wing influencer and podcaster who was a personal friend and peer of Kirks. Johnson zeroed in on the part of Kimmels monologue that could be construed as a formal declaration of the alleged shooter being confirmed as a MAGA activistan inaccurate representation of events.
Something demonstrably evil happened on Jimmy Kimmels show, Johnson said at the top of his Wednesday episodean episode entitled Jimmy Kimmel LIES About Charlie Kirk Killer, Blames Charlie For His Murder!? Disney Must Fire Kimmel.
Later on the show, Johnson had an unlikely guest for a video podcast: Trumps hand-picked chair of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr.
The FCC chair weighed in on Kimmels segment, which at that point had seemingly not yet become controversial outside of the conservative media ecosystem. Carr described Kimmels comments as part of a concerted effort to try to lie to the American people about the nature of one of the most significant newsworthy public interest acts that weve seen in a long time.
Carr went on to describe FCC broadcasting license-holders as having an obligation to operate in the public interest. Lest there be any confusion that he was suggesting ABC had defaulted on this obligation by airing Kimmels Monday night monologue, Carr added: I mean, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or theres going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1968359685045838041/video/1
Kimmel had indeed made a mistake. Like many other public figures on both sides, hed commented on a still-unfolding situation with details that could be easily contradicted pending further information. The hosts remark about alleged shooter Tyler Robinson being one of their own came after a moment where it seemed as if Robinson was part of the far-right groyper movement. Although some ambiguity remains, evidence now points to the shooter acting against Kirks hatred, which many have interpreted as suggesting a left-leaning motivation. No definitive answers have yet been determined to fully explain the shooters actions.
A clarification on Kimmels part was reasonable to expect, following the backlash, and he reportedly planned on delivering one Wednesday night. He never got the chance, however.
Following Carrs appearance on Johnsons show, which the host quickly hyped to his nearly four million followers on X, Nexstar, which runs 32 ABC affiliates and happens to be awaiting FCC approval for a $6.2 billion merger, signaled it would not broadcast Kimmels show for the foreseeable future. (Carr subsequently thanked Nexstar for doing the right thing in a tweet.)
ABC responded soon after, announcing Kimmels show was on an indefinite hiatus, without explaining the decision. ABCs move eerily echoed CBS parting ways with vocal Trump critic Stephen Colbert back in Julyat a time when the company was awaiting FCC approval for a merger. It also fulfilled a prophecy from Trump at that moment: I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next.
More recently, Kimmels indefinite suspension follows a wave of firings that has hit journalists, cable news pundits, professors, and many others whose comments about Kirk were deemed offensive in certain circles. Kimmels sidelining, however, is by far the most high-profile, and may have a chilling effect on what people feel comfortable saying on TV going forward.
The ongoing, wide-ranging blowback should be reminiscent of the censorial post-9/11 atmosphere, for Aericans old enough to remember it. Bill Mahers Politically Incorrect (also an ABC show) was cancelled in June 2002 following the hosts controversial comments about 9/11 terrorists not being cowards. (Mahers replacement? Ironically, it was Jimmy Kimmel.) The following year, when the U.S. officially invaded Iraq, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines told a London audience she was ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas, a statement that led to death threats, radio boycotts, demonstrations of bulldozers running over Dixie Chicks CDs, and the effective end of the superstar groups career.
Several prominent voices have already called out Kimmels indefinite suspension as a similar threat to free speech, including Governor JB Pritzker, the Writers Guild of America, and comedian Wanda Sykes, who had been scheduled to appear on Kimmels show Wednesday night. (He didnt end the Ukraine War or solve Gaza within his first week, Sykes said of President Trump in an Instagram reel. But he did end freedom of speech within his first year.
As for Trump and his allies, they are celebrating the outcome. Fox News host Sean Hannity called Kimmels sidelining long overdue, which is difficult to reconcile with the idea that Kimmels primary offense was his inaccurate comment from Monday night.
Johnson went a step further and took credit for the firing, quote-tweeting a 2017 Kirk tweet expressing distaste for Kimmel, adding: We did it for you, Charlie.
More ominous was the next line in Johnsons tweet: And were just getting started
Welcome to AI Decoded, Fast Companys weekly newsletter that breaks down the most important news in the world of AI. You can sign up to receive this newsletter every week via email here.
New data makes OpenAI look more like a consumer tech company
During its early years, OpenAI looked like it might build a business selling access to its increasingly powerful AI models to Fortune 500 companies. But when ChatGPT launched (almost by surprise) in late 2022, the startup suddenly had a breakout consumer productone that raced to 100 million users in just a few months, faster than any app in history. Overnight, OpenAI became a consumer tech brand and, most importantly, the poster child for generative AI in the minds of everyday users.
Today, ChatGPT has more than 700 million weekly active users worldwide, according to OpenAI. And the way those people use the chatbot suggests the company may be drifting further toward the consumer market. This week, OpenAI released a study of 1.5 million user chat logs between May 2024 and June 2025, revealing that nearly three-quarters (73%) of chats were personal rather than work-related. Just a year earlier, in June 2024, personal and work prompts had been roughly equal. (That data excludes OpenAIs API customers, who are largely developers and enterprises.)
The report comes at a time when, across industries, many enterprises are growing skeptical about howand whenAI tools might deliver the efficiencies they were promised, the kind executives can tout on earnings calls. Despite the hype, by most objective accounts, the AI transformation hasnt yet materialized. An August MIT report, for example, found that 95% of enterprise AI pilot projects have stalled. Meanwhile, talk of an AI bubble continues, with critics raising an eyebrow at bullish startup valuations and tech stock prices.
OpenAI still projects enormous revenue growthup to $12.7 billion in 2025 and $29.4 billion in 2026but the company is expected to keep losing billions annually. Thats fueling concerns about sustainability unless its enterprise business begins to generate significantly more revenue. Ultimately, that will depend on factors largely outside OpenAIs control: macroeconomic conditions, credit markets, infrastructure investment, and the reskilling of the workforce for AI.
OpenAI maintains that it has three core businesses: ChatGPT subscriptions, enterprise access to its models, and long-term research on artificial general intelligence. None are likely to disappear. Still, tech companies are often forced to follow the money, and right now the money points to consumers. If ChatGPTs massive user base keeps growing while enterprise adoption lags, OpenAI could feel pressure to devote more of its researchers and engineers to consumer featuressay, paymentsthat might entice free users to pay for subscriptions.
Are the legal tides turning in AI’s favor when it comes to data copyright?
The biggest potential roadblock to the AI boom so far is lawsuits over AI training data. The major labs have routinely scraped vast amounts of online content to train their models, operating under the assumption that the practice falls under the fair use clause of the Copyright Act. That assumption is now being tested in lawsuits from publishers and creators, many still moving through the courts. Some key cases, however, have already been decided, and on the core question of whether scraping copyrighted data for training counts as fair use, the momentum appears to favor the AI companies.
The most consequential decision to date came this summer in Bartz v. Anthropic, which Anthropic plans to settle. Judge William Alsup ruled that Anthropics use of digitized books as training data qualifies as fair use under the Copyright Act. Crucially, he determined that Anthropics use was transformativethe models werent simply regurgitating the books content and format, but instead using the text to learn how to predict the next most likely word in a sequence. Thats the basic mechanism by which LLMs generate language.
Judge Vince Chhabria reached a similar conclusion in Kadrey v. Meta (a class action in which Sarah Silverman and two other authors sued for copyright infringement), finding that Metas use of the books was transformativethe fair use clauses primary test. But Chhabria also cautioned that transformative use alone may not always be sufficient to secure fair use protection. The effect on a works market value could also factor in. His ruling suggested some reluctance to set a broad precedent for future AI training cases.
Even so, the combined weight of Bartz and Kadrey seems to be shaping industry behavior. One media executive told me publications are now hesitant to sue AI firms for using their content without permission, fearing an expensive loss. That caution reflects not only the outcomes of those cases but also the relatively modest remedies seen in other recent federal decisions, such as the Google search monopoly case, and a broader judicial mood in the current political climate.
Still, the most significant test casethe New York Times lawsuit against OpenAI and Microsoftremains unresolved. OpenAI has tried repeatedly to have the case dismissed, without success. In May, a judge ordered the company to preserve millions of chat logs and transcripts that could prove relevant. If the Times prevails, the question of fair use in AI training could be thrown wide open again.
More AI coverage from Fast Company:
AI is bad at data. This startup can fix that
Whitney Houston is going on tour 13 years after her death, thanks to AI
AI scraping is inevitable. Can publishers turn it into revenue?
AI nostalgia is the new comfort food for an anxious internet
Want exclusive reporting and trend analysis on technology, business innovation, future of work, and design? Sign up for Fast Company Premium.
When we make mistakes at work, it can lead to a cycle of negative thinking.The damaging thoughts swirl: “I’m an impostor.” “I’m not smart enough.” “I’m failing at my job.”Feeling like an impostor doubting one’s own abilities despite a track record of success is common, especially among women and members of marginalized groups. Even on days when everything’s going right, it can be hard to shift out of a cycle of self-doubt.But there are ways to interrupt that downward spiral.Many people have found cognitive behavioral therapy, a form of talk therapy, helpful to examine internal monologues such as “I’m going to say the wrong thing” or “I’m not good enough” and replace them with neutral or positive mantras.“What we do in cognitive behavior therapy is help people identify these negative thoughts, and then we teach them to evaluate those thoughts and see how accurate they are,” said Judith Beck, president of the Beck Institute for Cognitive Behavior Therapy, based in Pennsylvania.“If they’re not accurate, we discuss what’s a more realistic perspective on this,” she said.To reach students with social, emotional and behavioral challenges, Randolph Public Schools, a district outside of Boston, held a recent seminar about helping children reframe their negative feelings using cognitive behavioral therapy, or CBT.“We want our students to really have the mindset that they can do things confidently,” said Alpha Sanford, chief of development and student services, who started the initiative.During the training, Christin Brink, an assistant principal for special education, thought to herself, “Wow, I need this just as much as the kids do.”“Being a younger administrator in this role, it’s something new to me,” Brink added. “A lot of times I’ll have impostor syndrome, and I’ll make a choice that I later regret.”
Why we might focus on the negative
If you find yourself having negative thoughts frequently, you’re not alone. There are evolutionary reasons for it.“When we were cavemen, it was very important for us to be alert for danger,” Beck said. Preparing for the worst possible outcome helped people stay alive. Some worries such as “I don’t have enough time to complete this project” can motivate people to get things done, she said.But lingering on what’s going wrong can be unhealthy. We sometimes filter out positive reinforcement, downplaying recognition we’ve received and overemphasizing mistakes, said Kristene Doyle, director of the Albert Ellis Institute, a psychotherapy training organization based in New York.Practicing your positive beliefs by saying them to yourself with force, vigor and frequency can help you build a healthier thinking muscle, she said.
Hold that thought. Is it really true?
One of the first steps to reframing unhelpful thoughts is to identify those that are recurring in your mind. Examine whether they have any validity. What evidence is there to support them?“Telling myself ‘I’m not good enough to be here’ is only going to lead me down a path of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and you make that worst-case scenario happen,” Doyle said. “What makes somebody good enough to be in the room? What makes somebody good enough to have a job?”When someone is thinking they’re an impostor, “look for reasons why they’re not an impostor. What are their strengths? Why were they hired?” Doyle asked.For example, when high school teacher Catherine Mason of New York was asked to reexamine a section of her lesson plan, she had some damaging self-doubt.“I just heard, ‘You’re a terrible teacher. You’re so bad at this. Why can’t you just get it?’ And that was all internal,” Mason said. Acting out of fear, she rewrote the entire lesson plan, when she only needed to make minor changes.Now, instead of jumping to the worst conclusion, she pauses to examine the thought. “What did they actually say to you?” she asks herself. “Did they say the actual words, ‘You’re terrible?’ Did they actually say, ‘You have to throw out the whole lesson?'”People who are thinking “I’m not good enough” can challenge that thought by asking, “What does ‘good enough’ actually mean?” Doyle suggested.
Throw it under a microscope
Some therapists get creative when working with clients to identify negative feelings or beliefs. Avigail Lev, a psychologist with the Bay Area CBT Center in San Francisco, has clients write down the phrases, such as “They don’t value the work that I’m doing” or “I haven’t done enough to get a raise.”After that, she leads clients through exercises to diffuse the strength of those thoughts, such as reading the sentences backward, counting the words in the statement, or writing the phrases on a cloud.It can take time and practice to successfully reframe negative thoughts that have been replaying in our mind for years. When Renee Baker was studying architecture in college, professors and instructors frequently tore into her work. The critiques were designed to thicken her skin. But they had a lasting impact.“There’s the self-doubt that comes with being told, literally, ‘You’re not good enough. Your ideas aren’t good enough. Your work isn’t good enough,'” said Baker, who’s now director of project management at Inform Studio, a design firm. “At the heart of a lot of my self-doubt is feeling like my voice, and what I think, what I believe, what I am passionate about, isn’t as important as the next person’s.”So Baker worked with a therapist to challenge her damaging core beliefs, exchanging them for more neutral thoughts. At work, she practiced speaking up even when her throat felt tight with anxiety. Over time, she became less anxious and more comfortable sharing her ideas.
Find a replacement thought
You can get specific when you’re searching for alternative, healthier mantras.“When we look at this sentence, ‘They don’t value the work that I’m doing,’ do you have any examples of when you felt your work was valued? Do you have examples of when people appreciated your work?” Lev asked.You can also reframe your thoughts about other people who are part of your workday.Eleanor Forbes, a social worker in Randolph Public Schools, helps teachers and administrators learn to apply CBT techniques. When staff members complain that a young person is being manipulative, she helps them reframe the thought. “How about we just say that this young person is just using survival skills?” she said.Brink, the assistant principal, learned to reframe her own negative thoughts, saying to herself: “I made a lot of great choices today,” or “This was what went well,” and “Tomorrow we can try again with x, y and z.”Having scripted phrases ready togo helps when negative thoughts resurface, she said.“I’ve got this,” she tells herself. “One step at a time.”
Have you overcome an obstacle or made a profound change in your work? Send your workplace questions and story ideas to cbussewitz@ap.org. Follow AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health at https://apnews.com/hub/be-well.
Cathy Bussewitz, Associated Press
Alphabet’s Waymo will offer its autonomous rides on Via Transportation’s public transit platform, starting with Chandler city in Arizona, the companies said on Thursday.
The service will be introduced this fall in the city’s on-demand small-scale public transportation service, Chandler Flex, which is powered by Via’s software.
The transit technology makers suite of software and technology-enabled services powers public transportation systems in hundreds of cities across more than 30 countries, the company said.
“We’re delighted that this partnership with Waymo paves the path for AVs (autonomous vehicles) to become accessible to millions of global public transit riders, enhancing mobility, lowering operating costs, and improving safety outcomes,” said Daniel Ramot, Vias co-founder and CEO.
Waymo has been ramping up operations in the U.S. as the robotaxi race heats up. On Wednesday, it said that it plans to start offering autonomous cab rides in Nashville, Tennessee, next year in collaboration with ride-hailing firm Lyft.
After starting in Phoenix in 2020, Waymo now offers paid driverless rides to the public in the San Francisco Bay Area, along with parts of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Austin and Atlanta.
EV maker Tesla deployed a limited robotaxi service in Austin in June. The company has said it plans to expand the service to the San Francisco Bay Area.
Yazhini MV, Reuters
Nvidia said on Thursday it would invest $5 billion in Intel, throwing its heft behind the struggling U.S. chipmaker just weeks after the White House engineered an extraordinary deal for the U.S. government to take a massive stake in the company.
The stake instantly will make Nvidia one of Intel’s largest shareholders, giving it roughly 4% or more of the company after new shares are issued to complete the deal.
Nvidia’s support represents a new opening for Intel after years of turnaround efforts at the famed U.S. manufacturer failed to pay off, and it triggered a 30% jump in the troubled chipmaker’s shares in premarket action.
The company once the chip industry’s flagbearer that claimed to put the “silicon” in Silicon Valley appointed a new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, in March.
He came under fire from U.S. elected officials, including U.S. President Trump, who called for him to resign due to concerns about his connections with China.
That led to a swiftly arranged meeting in Washington that ended with Intel’s unusual arrangement to give the United States a 10% stake in the company.
The pact includes a plan for Intel and Nvidia to jointly develop PC and data center chips, but crucially will not involve Intel’s contract manufacturing business, known as a “foundry” in the chip industry, making chips for Nvidia.
Most analysts believe that for Intel’s foundry to survive, it would need to eventually win a large customer such as Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm or Broadcom.
Nvidia, whose must-have chips are powering a global artificial intelligence boom, said in a statement it would pay $23.28 per share for Intel common stock, a price slightly below the $24.90 at which Intel shares closed on Wednesday.
However, that is higher than the $20.47 price per share that the United States government paid for an extraordinary 10% stake it took in Intel last month.
“It’s a reflection of Nvidia looking to diversify to an extent its investment within the U.S. and as well to gain some brownie points with the U.S. government,” said Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group in London.
“It doesn’t change the bigger problem which Nvidia is facing with China, but it keeps it in favor with the U.S. government.”
The pact represents a potential risk to Taiwan’s TSMC. TSMC currently manufactures Nvidia’s flagship processors, a business that the world’s most valuable company could one day extend to Intel.
AMD, which competes with Intel for supplying chips to data centers, also stands to lose thanks to Nvidia’s backing.
Shares of Nvidia rose more than 3%. AMD slipped nearly 4%, while U.S.-listed shares of TSMC slid 2%. TSMC and AMD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The deal adds to a growing reserve of capital that Intel has accumulated weeks after it announced a $2 billion investment from Softbank and received $5.7 billion from the U.S. government.
David Zinsner, Intel’s chief financial officer, told investors at a Deutsche Bank conference last month that the company was in a “good cash position” and would not require much more capital until it saw significant demand for 14A, a next-generation manufacturing process that it expects to invest heavily in building.
CEO Tan has vowed to make Intel’s operations lean and build factory capacity only when there’s demand to match it.
SPEEDY LINKS
Under the deal announced Thursday, Intel is planning to design custom data center central processors that Nvidia will package with its AI chips, known as GPUs. A proprietary Nvidia technology will let the Intel and Nvidia chips communicate at higher speeds than before.
Speedy links are a key differentiator in the AI market because many chips must be strung together to act as one to chew through massive amounts of data.
At present, Nvidia’s best-selling AI servers with those speedy links are only available using Nvidia’s own chips, but the deal would now put Intel on equal footing, giving it a chance to make money off each Nvidia server.
The combined Nvidia-Intel chips could provide a major competitive challenge to AMD, which is developing its own AI servers, and Broadcom, which also has chip-to-chip connection technology and helps companies such as Google develop AI chips.
“Anything that NVIDIA decides to endorse just by association will make that stock of Intel appear attractive because it implies that Nvidia sees value in Intel,” said Peter Andersen, founder of Andersen Capital Management in Boston.
Broadcom did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
For consumer markets, Nvidia will provide Intel with a custom graphics chip that Intel can package with its PC central processors with the same speedy links, potentially giving it an edge against rivals such as AMD.
While Intel’s x86 computing architecture has lost ground in both data centers and PCs to chips with technology from Arm Ltd, it still has a majority market share.
“This historic collaboration tightly couples Nvidia’s AI and accelerated computing stack with Intel’s CPUs and the vast x86 ecosystem a fusion of two world-class platforms,” Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang said in a statement. “Together, we will expand our ecosystems and lay the foundation for the next era of computing.”
The two companies did not disclose the financial terms of their technical collaboration but said they would make “multiple generations” of future products. Nvidia and Intel officials described the collaboration as a commercial arrangement under which they will provide chips to one another to create products and said there was no licensing component to the deal.
“For Nvidia, the financial impact is small, but the political upside is big: this move aligns with U.S. policy and could help ease restrictions on selling advanced chips to China,” said Matt Britzman, senior equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown.
Nvidia has struggled to sell its H20 chips in China, with the company trying to navigate demands from Washington and Beijing at the same time. In mid-August, Trump engineered a deal that granted Nvidia licenses to sell H20 chips to China in exchange for a 15% cut of those sales, but Nvidia has said it has not sent any H20 chips to China.
The companies declined to give a date for when the first joint products would come to market but said that their product plans prior to the joint deal had not changed.
Nvidia, in recent years, has entered both the PC central processor market and the data center central processor market. Meanwhile, Intel has tried to sell several AI chips that compete with Nvidia and has said it plans to develop an AI data center server that would compete with Nvidia.
Stephen Nellis, Jeffery Dastin and Max Cherney, Reuters
The Federal Reserve’s nearly unanimous decision Wednesday to reduce its key interest rate was seen by many observers as a quiet show of unity and independence amid President Donald Trump’s relentless pressure for steeper cuts and his unprecedented effort to fire a top Fed official.Many Fed-watchers expected a contentious two-day meeting this week, with the economy’s future uncertain and a Trump appointee hastily added to the board just hours before the meeting began. The White House has also floated several members of the Fed’s governing board as potential replacements for the current chair, Jerome Powell, when his term ends in May, creating incentives for those officials to push for the deep rate cuts Trump has demanded.Some economists expected as many as three dissenting votes among the 12 voting members of the rate-setting committee, which would be the most in five years and somewhat unusual for a consensus-driven organization. Even four dissents which hasn’t happened since 1992 weren’t out of the question.Trump has appointed three members to the Fed’s governing board two in his first term all of whom could have voted in favor of steeper cuts.And many officials on the rate-setting committee are wary of cutting too quickly, with inflation still clearly above the Fed’s 2% target. Some observers thought one of those policymakers could dissent in the other direction in favor of not cutting rates at all.Instead, just one official dissented from the Fed’s decision to reduce its rate by a quarter-point: Stephen Miran, who was nominated by Trump to an empty seat and hurriedly approved by the Senate late Monday, just hours before the two-day meeting began.Brian Bethune, a Boston College economist, was impressed by the Fed’s unity in the face of White House pressure.“They all came together to support what seems to be a very balanced decision,” he said. The nearly unanimous vote “sends a very strong message that they’re not going to bow to the monarch. They’re going to do what’s appropriate for the economy.”Trump has said that one of the Fed governors he appointed in 2018 Christopher Waller is a potential replacement for Powell, and Waller dissented in favor of a rate cut in July, when the Fed kept borrowing costs unchanged. Another Trump appointee from his first term, Michelle Bowman, also dissented in July. Yet on Wednesday they both voted with their colleagues.On social media, Jason Furman, a top economic adviser in the Obama White House, posted that he was “thrilled” that Trump appointees Bowman and Waller did not join in Miran’s dissent. “Bodes well for the Fed’s independence,” wrote Furman, now an economist at Harvard University.In the weeks leading up to the meeting, Trump sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, after accusing her of mortgage fraud, which she has denied. It was the first time in the Fed’s 112-year history that a president has sought to remove a governor.Many legal experts consider the firing a threat to the Fed’s independence, as Trump has openly discussed securing a majority on the Fed’s governing board. Cook sued to keep her job and a court ruled she could remain on the Fed’s board while her lawsuit is resolved.An appeals court upheld that decision late Monday, enabling Cook to vote in favor of a rate cut Wednesday. Also late Monday, the Senate voted along party lines to confirm Miran as a Fed governor. He was sworn in Tuesday morning.Previous presidents have appointed their economic advisers to the Fed. Former chair Ben Bernanke was an adviser in the Bush administration before being appointed chair of the Fed. But Miran’s case is unusual because he is keeping his position at the White House, while taking unpaid leave.Powell has always sought to avoid a direct confrontation with Trump and avoided commenting on Cook’s case during a news conference Wednesday, and he didn’t say anything directly about Miran’s status.“We’re strongly committed to maintaining our independence and beyond that I really don’t have anything to share,” Powell said when asked about Miran.Powell also repeatedly noted that with inflation still above the Fed’s 2% target, while unemployment has also risen, it’s not clear what steps the Fed should take next. If it cuts its rate too much, it could overstimulate the economy and accelerate inflation. If it keeps its rate too high, an ongoing hiring slowdown could get worse.“It’s challenging to know what to do,” Powell said. “There are no risk-free paths now.”Nevertheless, “we came together at the meeting and acted with a high degree of unity,” he added.Claudia Sahm, a former Fed economist and now chief economist at New Century Advisors, said Fed policymakers likely acted out of support for the Fed as an institution.“The institution is under attack,” she said. “This was not the time for three dissents.”
AP Business Writers Paul Wiseman and Alex Veiga contributed to this report. Veiga contributed from Los Angeles.
Christopher Rugaber, AP Economics Writer
Over the past few years, celebrity-backed liquor brands have enjoyed an undeniable cultural momentand tequila is currently the hottest drink in the game. Just ask Hailee Steinfeld.
This February, the Academy Award-nominated actress partnered with Premium Beers Group, a leader within the alcohol industry in Mexico, to launch her own tequila cocktail brand called Angel Margarita. At the Fast Company Innovation Festival on September 16, Steinfeld told audiences that the brand is all about creating something that feels real and authentic in a beverage industry full of other players.
From left: Jeff Beer, Hailee Steinfeld, and Jordi Zindel speak onstage during the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2025 on September 16, 2025, in New York City. [Photo: Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for Fast Company]
Steinfeld is the latest in a series of celebrities to debut her own tequila brand, joining George Clooneys Casamigos (which sold for $1 billion in 2017), Dwayne The Rock Johnsons Teremana, Matthew and Camila McConaugheys Pantalones Tequila, and Kendall Jenners 818 Tequila.
Unlike those brands, though, Angel Margarita is not a pure spirit, but rather a premixed cocktail that comes in lime, grapefruit, ranch water, and wild berry flavors. It signals that, as ready-to-drink (RTD) cocktails hit the mainstream, theyre poised to become the next trend in celebrity beverage collaborations.
[Photo: Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for Fast Company]
Why RTD cocktails will be the next celebrity alcohol fad
According to Jordi Zindel, the CEO of Angel Margarita, the brand was inspired by Steinfelds own margarita recipe, which she perfected after moving into a new home with a bar.
I was, like, I can’t have a great bar and not be able to be behind it and make a house cocktail, Steinfeld said. The go-to was a margarita, because I felt I could nail a classic margarita. With a lot of trial and a lot of error, Angel Margarita was born, and I now have the perfect cocktail that I can pour over ice. After everybody loves it and enjoys it, I tell them its from a can.
[Photo: Eugene Gologursky/Getty Images for Fast Company]
Theres a reason why Steinfeld might have opted for a ready-to-drink beverage over a plain tequila: According to the spirits trade association Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, RTD sales were up 27% in 2023, making them the fastest-growing spirits category by revenue.
Building on the earlier success of hard seltzer companies like White Claw and Truly, brands like Captain Morgan, Jack Daniel’s, and Bacardi have all jumped onto the RTD trend. Meanwhile, companies focusing exclusively on canned cocktailslike Cutwater and On the Rocksare taking off with Gen Zers and millennials.
Steinfeld announced at the Innovation Festival that Angel Margarita is set to launch in New York next week. As the brand begins to expand its reach, its only a matter of time before other public figures pick up on the growing RTD market as a new way to reach fans.
Dating app usage is falling, with more and more users viewing it as a chore rather than a chance to find love. Bumble, the app famous for having women make the first move, is far from immune to the dating downfall.
So it comes as no surprise that the company is leaning into one of its other pillars: friendship.
Bumble has launched a new BFF app for what it describes as The Great Friennassance. According to researchnotably, commissioned by Bumble55% of 18- to 35-year-olds are looking for more local friends, while one in four want friends they can bring to events.
‘Find your people’
The stand-alone app, which is available for U.S. users, includes a lot of similar features of the dating app, such as interest-based matching, photo prompts, and customizable profiles.
It also includes a Groups area that uses technology from Geneva, a group and community app, to create spaces where people can discuss shared interests and find events in their area. Bumble purchased Geneva last year.
From the beginning, our mission has been to help people build relationships that matter. Seeing how members use BFF to create deep, lasting friendships reminds us that what people really crave is belonging, Whitney Wolfe Herd, founder and CEO of Bumble, said in a statement. With BFFs focus on communities, were making it possible not just to meet someonebut to truly find your people.
Bumble BFF first launched in 2016 and the company created an app called Bumble for Friends in 2023. Its unclear how Bumble BFF will impact the original friendship app.
Fast Company has reached out to Bumble for comment and will update this post if we hear back.
Missteps, layoffs, and leadership shakeups
Bumble had quite a tumultuous run recently. In January 2024, Herd stepped down as CEO and became executive chair.
Under the leadership of her successor, former Slack CEO Lidiane Jones, the company swiftly cut about 350 roles and, that April, rolled out a redesign. It included an updated compatibility algorithm, allowed men to message first, and rolled out new ads.
The latter brought immense controversy in response to ads such as, You know full well a vow of celibacy is not the answer and thou shalt not give up on dating and become a nun.
Social media users called out Bumble for trying to control womens bodily autonomy and get them to lower their standards. The company pulled the ads and admitted, We made a mistake.
Then, this March, Herd returned to the helm of Bumble and is prioritizing quality over quantity, stating that members with low-quality and incomplete profiles might be removed from the app. She also cut the companys headcount by 30% this summer, a move that could save Bumble $40 million annually.
Shares of Bumble Inc (Nasdaq: BMBL) are down around 13% year to date.
