The post-commute changing from sneakers to office-friendly pumps is something well-known to many workers. But could it become a thing of the past?
At a growing number of startups and tech offices, workers are taking some of the comforts gained from work-from-home days and leaving behind their shoes.
No shoes at Cursor NYC, angel investor Ben Lang posted on social media in October, showing a pile of shoes at the AI companys entrance.
Wholly dedicated to the cause, Lang has created the website noshoes.fun, a no-shoes office directory for those who feel equally passionate about having their feet get some fresh air during the work day.
Among the 21 companies listed are small startups, where a founding team works out of someones house, and taking off your shoes is simply common courtesy. Others are large: like productivity app company Notion, who adopted a no-shoes policy in their HQ until around four years ago, or AI-powered QA Spur, who offer branded slides upon arrival at their office in Manhattan.
Responses to Langs post were mixed. Oh dear, one user wrote. Imagine the smell.
Are there slippers for the bathroom??? wrote another. Another: Imagine bringing round a client.
The shoeless office is growing in popularity, as an unconventional approach to improve focus and create a comfortable environment as more workers return to the office. The trend has since made it across the pond, as the Guardian recently reported, with some British companies taking their cues from Americas West Coast as a way to improve focus, comfort and even staff morale.
Shoeless offices might sound like a gimmick. But who knows? With record levels of burnout (76% of U.S. workers reporting at least one mental health condition), anything that can help the office feel a little bit more like home could have an impact on morale.
Of course, regardless of being a cute workplace trend, taking off outdoor shoes inside is widespread across countless cultures the world over.
It is common courtesy to remove your shoes upon entering the home in countries like Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries. In Muslim households, shoes are left at the door as a sign of respect. In Japan, taking shoes off and switching to slippers to wear inside is extremely common in schools and in many places of business; taking them off in peoples homes is standard practice.
It also has pop cultural precedent. Recall Alexander Skarsgrds Succession character, tech mogul Lukas Matsson, walking sans-shoe between private jets in the shows final season. Or Bert Cooper in Mad Men striding around his Manhattan advertising agency in socked feet.
Many amongst us will have been guilty of slipping off a particularly uncomfortable pair of wingtips under the work desk at one time or another. And as the pendulum swings back on work-life balance, and the 9-5 is replaced by a 996 grind mentality, particularly among AI startupsthe very least you can be is cozy while working a 72 hours work week.
A federal judge began hearing arguments Monday on whether she should halt, at least temporarily, the immigration crackdown in Minnesota that has led to the fatal shootings of two people by government officers.
The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, five days after Renee Good was shot by an Immigration and Customs officer. The shooting of Alex Pretti by a Border Patrol officer on Saturday added urgency to the case.
In other developments, President Donald Trump said he had a very good call with Minnesota Gov. Walz about the latest Minneapolis shooting and that they are now on a similar wavelength. It was an abrupt shift from Trump, who frequently derides Walz for his actions on immigration issues in Minnesota.
During arguments before U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez, lawyers for the state and the Twin Cities argued that the situation on the street is so dire as to require the court to halt the federal government’s immigration enforcement actions.
If this is not stopped right here, right now, I dont think anybody who is seriously looking at this problem can have much faith in how our republic is going to go in the future,” Minnesota Assistant Attorney General Brian Carter said.
The Justice Department’s attorneys were set to speak later Monday.
Menendez asked attorneys for the state and the cities where she should draw the line between a legitimate law enforcement response and one that violates the Constitution. She questioned whether the state and city arguments would require her to decide policy differences between the president and Minnesota.
Trump also said he would send border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota. The president’s statement comes after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino, who has become the public face of the crackdown, answered questions at news conferences over the weekend about Pretti’s shooting. Trump posted on social media that Homan will report directly to him.
Since the original court filing, the state and cities have substantially added to their request in an effort to restore the conditions that existed before the Trump administration launched Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota on Dec. 1.
The lawsuit asks the judge to order a reduction in the number of federal law enforcement officers and agents in Minnesota back to the level before the surge and to limit the scope of the enforcement operation.
Justice Department attorneys have called the lawsuit legally frivolous and said Minnesota “wants a veto over federal law enforcement. They asked the judge to reject the request or to at least stay her order pending an anticipated appeal.
Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said during a news conference Sunday that the lawsuit is needed because of the unprecedented nature of this surge. It is a novel abuse of the Constitution that were looking at right now. No one can remember a time when weve seen something like this.
It is unclear when the judge might rule.
The case has implications for other states that have been or could become targets of ramped-up federal immigration enforcement operations. Attorneys general from 19 states plus the District of Columbia, led by California, filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Minnesota.
“If left unchecked, the federal government will no doubt be emboldened to continue its unlawful conduct in Minnesota and to repeat it elsewhere, the attorneys general wrote.
Menendez ruled in a separate case on Jan. 16 that federal officers in Minnesota cannot detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who are not obstructing authorities, including people who follow and observe agents.
An appeals court temporarily suspended that ruling three days before Saturdays shooting. But the plaintiffs in that case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, asked the appeals court late Saturday for an emergency order lifting the stay in light of Pretti’s killing.
The Justice Department argued in a reply filed Sunday that the stay should remain in place, calling the injunction unworkable and overly broad.
In yet another case, a different federal judge, Eric Tostrud, issued an order late Saturday blocking the Trump administration from destroying or altering evidence related to Saturday’s shooting. Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty asked for the order to try to preserve evidence collected by federal officials that state authorities have not yet been able to inspect.
A hearing in that case is scheduled for Monday afternoon in federal court in St. Paul.
The fact that anyone would ever think that an agent of the federal government might even think about doing such a thing was completely unforeseeable only a few weeks ago,” Ellison told reporters. But now, this is what we have to do.
___
This story has been corrected to show the judges name is Katherine Menendez, not Kathleen.
Steve Karnowski, Associated Press
Associated Press reporter Jack Brook contributed to this article.
Below, Kati Morton shares five key insights from her new book, Why Do I Keep Doing This?: Unlearn the Habits Keeping You Stuck and Unhappy.
Kati is a licensed therapist, author, and content creator. For over 14 years, she has been helping people better understand their mental health through therapy and YouTube videos.
Whats the big idea?
Why do we fall into the same patternswhether thats people-pleasing, perfectionism, or emotional numbingeven when we know theyre not good for us? These strategies help us feel safe, but replacing that armor with inner strength lets us move with freedom instead of fear.
Listen to the audio version of this Book Biteread by Kati herselfin the Next Big Idea App.
1. Control is a survival strategy.
We often think of control as a personality trait or state of being. We say things like, Im just a control freak, or Dont worry, Ive got everything under control. But control isnt a state of being; its how we learned to survive. Its the way our nervous system tries to protect us when life feels unpredictable.
As children, many of us learned that being good, quiet, or perfect helped us stay safe or loved. Those patterns became invisible armor. So as adults, we micromanage, overthink, or self-criticizenot because we enjoy it, but because deep down, it still feels like the way to stay safe.
For me, when things at home felt out of my control, I would focus on what I could control: my grades, how clean my room was, how well I performed. That false sense of control helped me self-soothe when everything else felt uncertain.
Understanding this changes everything. Instead of shaming ourselves for needing control, we can get curious: What is this control trying to protect me from? What feels unpredictable in my life right now? That curiosity opens the door to deeper understanding. We cant change what we dont first understand.
When we stop fighting our patterns and start understanding them, we realize nothing is wrong with us. Were just trying to stay connected and safe. Control was never the problemit was our bodys best attempt at protection.
2. People-pleasing isnt about being nice.
People-pleasing often gets labeled as kindnesssomething we wear as a badge of honor. But its really fear in disguise: fear of rejection, abandonment, or conflict. Many of us learned early on that meeting everyone elses needs was the safest way to belong.
When we spend all our energy anticipating what others want, we lose touch with what we want.
I used to think being a people-pleaser made me a good personthat putting others first was selfless and admirable. But during one therapy session, my therapist told me something that completely stopped me in my tracks. She said, People-pleasing is actually a form of manipulation. I was shocked. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized she was right. I wasnt trying to make others happy because I cared so deeply about how they felt. I was doing it because I couldnt tolerate any discomfort. Pleasing them was how I managed my own anxiety.
People-pleasing doesnt bring us closer to others; it disconnects us from ourselves. When we spend all our energy anticipating what others want, we lose touch with what we want. Over time, that can lead to resentment, exhaustion, and even depression, because were living a life that looks good to others but doesnt feel true to us.
The first step toward change isnt suddenly saying no to everything. Its to pause before saying yes. Ask yourself: Am I doing this out of genuine care and desire, or out of fear? That small question helps separate your worth from your usefulness.
Healthy relationships dont require you to disappear to stay loved. Honoring your own needs isnt selfishits how you build real connection.
3. Perfectionism is a moving target.
Perfectionism often feels like the motivating factor that keeps us striving. But beneath it is a deep sense of not enough. We chase flawless performance because we believe that if we can finally get it right, well earn the attention or approval weve been craving.
The problem is that perfection is a moving target. Each achievement gives a brief hit of relief before the next should appears. Thats because perfectionism isnt about successits about safety. No mistakes mean no criticism. Doing everything right prevents rejection.
Instead of asking Was it perfect?, ask Did I feel connected?’
For me, perfectionism started early. My dad worked away from home for long stretches of time, and I remember believing that if I just did everything perfectlyif I was first chair in band or made the varsity teamhed want to come home more often. I thought my achievements could somehow earn his presence. It took me a long time to realize that his work schedule had nothing to do with how well I was doing, and that my worth wasnt something I had to prove.
The antidote to perfectionism isnt lowering your standards, but rather shifting your focus from performance to connection. Instead of asking Was it perfect?, ask Did I feel connected?
Growth doesnt come from flawless execution; it comes from the willingness to show up, try, fail, and learn. When we allow ourselves to be human, we stop hustling to earn our worth and start realizing that weve always been enough.
4. Suppression isnt strength.
Many of us (myself included) grew up believing that staying calm, composed, and fine was the mature thing to do. But emotional suppression isnt strengthits self-abandonment.
When we push feelings down, they dont disappear; they just get buried in our bodies, showing up later as anxiety, irritability, or burnout. Emotions arent bad things. Theyre signals that tell us when something matters, hurts, or needs attention.
At times when Ive been holding everything together for too longpushing through stress, ignoring frustration, pretending Im fineit always finds a way out. Usually, its when Im watching TV and a commercial about an aging dog comes on, and suddenly Im sobbing on the couch. Its not really about the commercial, of course; its all the unspoken, unfelt emotions finally asking to be felt.
Learning to feel doesnt mean losing control. It means expanding your capacity to stay with discomfort without letting it consume you. Thats real resilience.
Naming emotions helps regulate the nervous system and makes them feel less overwhelming.
A simple practice is to name what you feel out loud: I feel sad, I feel angry, I feel scared. Naming emotions helps regulate the nervous system and makes them feel less overwhelming. Over time, this builds a sense of internal trust: I can handle my feelings instead of running from them. True strength isnt about being unshakeable. Its about being able to bend without breaking.
5. Healing is about letting go, not losing control.
Letting go is hard because it can feel like free-falling. For people (like myself) whove relied on control to survive, loosening that grip can feel unsafe, even when its what we need to grow.
For a long time, I thought letting go meant not caringthat if I wasnt worrying or trying to manage everything, it meant I was being irresponsible or indifferent. But I eventually realized that letting go isnt about giving up; its about redefining what safety looks like. Its about trusting that I can care deeply without trying to control every outcome. That shift from control to trust has been one of the most freeing lessons of my life.
Letting go isnt about chaos or indifference. Its about trusttrusting that you can handle life as it unfolds, without needing to manage every detail. Its about moving from hypervigilance to faith.
I see this so often, both in my patients and in myself. Theres control that keeps us grounded, like setting boundaries or creating structure. And then theres control that keeps us stuck and stops us from reaching out, trying new things, or letting people in. Healing means noticing when control is helping you feel safe . . . and when its keeping you from living your life.
That shift from control to trust has been one of the most freeing lessons of my life.
When we let go of the illusion of control, we make space for authenticity. The goal isnt to stop caring or planning; its to stop living out of fear. Because real freedom isnt about having control over everythingits about no longer needing to.
Enjoy our full library of Book Bitesread by the authors!in the Next Big Idea app.
This article originally appeared in Next Big Idea Club magazine and is reprinted with permission.
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
