 |
|
|
|||||
Rent can eat up an entire paycheck at the start of the month, so a growing number of renters are turning to a financial product that promises relief by letting them split the bill for a price. So-called rent now, pay later services have emerged over the past few years as housing costs climb and paychecks grow less predictable, particularly for lower-income and gig-economy workers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rents have jumped nearly 28% in past five years. Companies such as Flex, Livble, and, more recently, Affirm, say breaking rent into multiple payments can help renters manage cash flow. But consumer advocates warn the products typically function like short-term loans, layering fees onto already strained budgets and, in some cases, carrying triple-digit effective interest rates raising questions about whether they ease financial pressure or deepen it. Kellen Johnson, 44, started using Flex to split up his rent payments about two years ago. Instead of paying the whole $1,850 of his rent on the first of the month, Johnson would pay $1,350 on that date, and $500 on the 15th. For the service, Flex collected a $14.99 monthly subscription fee, as well as 1% of the total rent, which for Johnson was $18.50, bringing his monthly charges for the app to more than $33. Johnson said he was willing to pay the extra costs in part because he worked as an independently contracted delivery person for Amazon at the time, and his paychecks could vary. It was an expense that I was incurring, but I went ahead as it was more convenient, said Johnson, who now works as a driver for senior citizens in Sacramento, California. Roughly 109 million Americans, or about 42.5 million households, are renters in the United States. The Census Bureau estimated in 2024 that a large share of those households pay 30% or more of their monthly income on rent. The bureau considers such households to be cost burdened, meaning rent consumes so much of their income that they have less ability to plan for future expenses or build wealth. Rent now, pay later services generally operate the same way: The company pays the landlord the full rent when due, and the renter repays the company in two or more installments over the course of the month. Because rent can be such a large expense, the companies argue that spreading payments out can give renters more cash on hand. Many of these services come with fees. The fees can be structured differently but should be generally thought of as cost of credit, consumer advocates warn. In Johnsons case, he was paying $33.49 for a two-week loan of $500, for an effective annual percentage rate of 172%, when expressed using standard consumer-lending calculations. Renters should be skeptical of any financing providers that have partnered with a landlord, and be skeptical of anything that sells itself as no fees or no interest, said Mike Pierce, executive director of Protect Borrowers. Pierce previously worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and co-authored a report that was released this week on the industry. Launched in 2019, Flex is one of the largest companies focused on splitting rent payments. The company says its 1.5 million customers now send about $2 billion a month in rent through its system, and several of the countrys largest landlords accept Flex as a payment option. Flex says most of its customers are lower-income renters with weaker credit profiles. The company reports a median credit score of 604 among its users and says about one in three customers works more than one job to make ends meet. A Flex spokesman says the average customer uses the service three to four times a year. Johnson used it every month. Livble does not charge a subscription, but charges renters a fee ranging from $30 to $40, according to the companys help page. Depending on how long the renter defers part of the payment, Livbles fees can translate into effective annual percentage rates of roughly 104% to 139%. The buy now, pay later company Affirm said this month that it is piloting a program allowing some customers to split rent into two payments. The program is being tested in partnership with Esusu, a company that reports rent payments to credit bureaus to help consumers build credit. An Affirm spokesman said the company is not charging renters interest or fees to use the product, but may charge landlords fees. As another financing option, landlords are increasingly accepting credit cards for rent payments. Bilt, a credit card startup, built its brand around targeting renters when it launched, and some tenants also use credit cards to accumulate rewards or points. But paying rent by credit card can also be costly. Landlords typically pass the processing fees on to tenants. Depending on the card issuer and payment network, these fees can range from about 2.5% to 3.5% of the rent. For a renter paying $1,500 a month, that translates to roughly $37.50 to $52.50 in fees a monthly cost comparable to what services like Livble and Flex charge. Economists and renters advocates argue that none of these financing options address the fundamental issue of affordability in the rental market. If credit cards, or flexible rent payment options become more widely used, they worry rents could rise further as landlords start factoring in a potential renters weekly cash flow as opposed to the rental market in the area the building is located in. Merchants already pass along credit card processing costs to customers in the form of higher prices, and advocates worry that the rental market could adopt similar patterns. For example, Livble is owned by RealPage, which last year settled allegations that its algorithm allowed landlords to collude and push rents higher. By Ken Sweet and Cora Lewis, The Associated Press Economics Writer Christopher Rugaber contributed.
Category:
E-Commerce
Amazon is rolling out a new feature in hopes of retainingor perhaps attractingnew Prime members. The tech giant announced Wednesday that Alexa+, its AI-powered assistant, is now available for free to all Prime members. Last March, Amazon began offering an early access preview for the new voice assistant that saw an inspiring response, with tens of millions of customers requesting access, according to a statement. The company has revamped its legacy Alexa product to handle more complex interactionsoffering examples of how users can engage in deep conversations with Alexa+ that may be ongoing over the course of potentially several days, as the technology can remember context, said Daniel Rausch, Amazons vice president of Alexa and Echo, in the statement. Homeowners are also pairing Alexa+ with their Ring cameras to identify unusual patterns around their homes, he said. People are engaging in two to three times more conversations with Alexa+ than they were previously, Rausch told CNBC. Every week in a customers journey, engagement goes up, and that is really the sign of a hit product, basically. USERS ARENT SOLD ON ALEXA+ Despite Rauschs cheerful assessment of the product, reviews elsewhere are more tempered. One Redditor posted Alexa+ is a mess on an Alexa subreddit four months ago, lamenting several of the technologys shortcomings, including that it feels like a huge downgrade from regular Alexa. The post garnered more than 240 responses, with other Redditors sharing similar frustrations. Still other Redditors shared near-daily complaints about lag times or the quality of responses on that subreddit. One task that Alexa+ may not be programmed to assist with is one thats been on the mind of many Prime members lately. In the U.S., searches for how to cancel Amazon Prime have surged 110% in the past month, reaching the highest level since December 2017, according to Google Trends. AMAZON PRIME FREEBIES Since launching Amazon Prime in 2005, the company has steadily added new features for membersincluding Alexa, which debuted with the first Echo device in 2014. While still available on such devices, Alexa is now available as an app and at Alexa.com. Full access to Alexa+ is available for free only to Prime members, though the company will allow nonmembers to test the new Alexa+ chat functionality at Alexa.com for free. Unlimited access to Alexa+ for people who dont want to pay the $139 annual Prime membership will cost $19.99 per month. AMAZON SELL-OFF The Alexa+ news alone wasnt enough to lift Amazon stock, as fears of an AI bubble have fueled a broader sell-off for tech stocks in recent days. Shares of Amazon have tumbled nearly 4% during the last five trading sessions. Of course, there are other factors at playthe company announced last week that it is slashing 16,000 jobs and will announce earnings on Thursday after the market closes.
Category:
E-Commerce
For a show that lasts roughly 13 minutes, the Super Bowl halftime performance has fueled decades of conversation. Sometimes the spark comes from a single moment as it did when Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlakes infamous wardrobe malfunction triggered a broadcast reckoning. Other times, it arrives through imagery and intent, from Jennifer Lopezs 2020 caged children staging that critiqued U.S. immigration policies to children at the U.S.-Mexico border to Kendrick Lamars carefully layered Black storytelling, delivered as Donald Trump watched from his seat inside the Caesars Superdome in New Orleans. The halftime show magnifies everything fashion choices, choreography, symbolism and invites interpretation on a scale few artists ever experience. That history forms the backdrop as Bad Bunny prepares to take the halftime stage, a moment that places Latin identity at the center of Americas most-watched television event. The conversation building around his performance extends beyond music, touching on language, culture and how much room one of the worlds biggest stars will have for symbolism and social commentary including past critiques of Trump within a show long shaped by tight NFL oversight. With that context, here is a look at some of the most talked about halftime moments. Timberlake and Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction The most enduring halftime controversy unfolded during the 2004 Super Bowl in Houston, when Jackson performed alongside Timberlake. In the closing seconds of Rock Your Body, Timberlake tugged at Jacksons costume, briefly revealing her right breast, adorned with a decorative shield. Timberlake later described the moment as an unintended wardrobe malfunction, a phrase that quickly entered pop-culture shorthand. The reaction was immediate and far-reaching. The incident prompted FCC scrutiny, congressional attention and a reevaluation of live television standards. CBS, which aired the game, was fined $550,000 by the Federal Communications Commission, a penalty later overturned, and broadcasters expanded the use of delays for live events. The professional fallout, however, was uneven. Jackson was disinvited from the Grammy Awards telecast the following week and largely retreated from the public spotlight, while Timberlakes career continued uninterrupted. Years later, Timberlake said the two had reconciled, but the disparity in their treatment wasn’t forgotten. When the NFL announced Timberlakes return to the halftime stage in 2018, the decision reignited debate. Critics pointed to what they viewed as a racial and gender double standard, arguing that Jackson, a Black woman, bore the brunt of the consequences while Timberlake, a white man, emerged largely unscathed. Online, hashtags such as #JusticeForJanet resurfaced, reframing the moment through a broader cultural lens. Formation: Beyoncé and political symbolism When Beyoncé performed Formation in 2016, the halftime show became a moment of cultural declaration. Set in the Bay Area, the performance leaned heavily into Black history and identity. Dancers appeared in Black Pantherinspired attire, raised clenched fists and formed symbolic shapes on the field as Beyoncé delivered lyrics celebrating Black features and pride. The imagery echoed decades of Black activism, from civil rights-era protest to modern calls for social justice. The performance drew widespread acclaim for its clarity and artistry while also sparking criticism from conservative commentators and some law enforcement groups who accused it of promoting anti-police sentiment. With an audience of more than 110 million viewers, the debate quickly moved beyond the stadium. Several moments stood out. Dancers briefly formed an X, interpreted by some as a reference to Malcolm X, while raised fists recalled the 1968 Olympic protest by Tommie Smith and John Carlos. The visuals aligned directly with the message of Formation, which centers Black identity and self-definition. Believe in Love: Coldplay and evolving visibility Coldplay was the halftime show headliner in 2016, bringing out Beyoncé and Bruno Mars for a performance built around themes of unity, inclusion and joy. The set featured a rainbow-colored stage, vibrant dancers and a crowd mosaic that spelled out Believe in Love. A pride flag was visible near frontman Chris Martin, and the shows closing imagery emphasized togetherness. While many viewers praised the message as affirming and timely, some conservative groups criticized the presentation for embracing LGBTQ+ symbolism. The reaction reflected broader cultural conversations around representation and visibility in mainstream entertainment. When Kendrick Lamar’s symbolism becomes the story Last year, Kendrick Lamar treated the halftime stage as a controlled narrative space, using choreography, costuming and staging to explore themes of identity, power and perception. His performance unfolded with cinematic precision, opening as dancers spilled out of a Buick GNX in choreographed fashion before Lamar took command of the field. Dancers dressed in red, white and blue framed the performance, while Samuel L. Jackson appeared as an Uncle Sam figure who interrupted the action with pointed commentary, labeling the spectacle too loud and urging Lamar to play the game. The exchange underscored the tension between expression and expectation that has come to define modern halftime shows. While the performance stayed within league parameters, it still sparked debate among commentators who scrutinized the imagery and tone. The response reinforced how the halftime show, even without overt rule-breaking, can function as visual storytelling that invites interpretation at a scale unmatched in other live events. Other defiant moments on a global stage The NFL has long maintained guardrails around the halftime show, particularly when performances edge toward political commentary. Still, some artists have chosen to test and at times ignore those limits. Ahead of Jennifer Lopez’s performance with Shakira in 2020, the NFL raied concerns about a segment widely interpreted as referencing children held in immigration detention facilities. The league asked Lopez to cut a segment featuring children in cages, a critique of U.S. immigration policies. But she refused and moved forward with the imagery, using visual symbolism rather than explicit messaging. The 2022 show featured a hip-hop celebration with a robust lineup of Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Mary J. Blige, 50 Cent, Eminem and Kendrick Lamar. But as Eminem’s performance of Lose Yourself concluded, the rapper dramatically took a knee, lowering his head in a gesture widely interpreted as a tribute to Colin Kaepernick, whose decision to kneel during the national anthem in 2016 to protest police brutality sparked a nationwide cultural reckoning. Kaepernicks protest was later echoed by other players, and he would soon find himself out of the league. Reports ahead of the game suggested the NFL had discouraged the gesture, though the league disputed that account. We watched all elements of the show during multiple rehearsals this week and were aware that Eminem was going to do that, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said at the time. During Madonna’s halftime set in 2012, M.I.A. flashed a middle finger toward the camera, a split-second gesture that immediately drew regulatory attention and replay-heavy coverage. The action prompted an immediate fine and a legal dispute with the NFL. The sides later reached a settlement, ending a multimillion-dollar case over the incident. By Jonathan Landrum Jr., AP entertainment writer
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration is reducing the number of immigration officers in Minnesota but will continue its enforcement operation that has sparked weeks of tensions and deadly confrontations, border czar Tom Homan said Wednesday. About 700 federal officersroughly a quarter of the total deployed to Minnesotawill be withdrawn immediately after state and local officials agreed over the past week to cooperate by turning over arrested immigrants, Homan said. But he did not provide a timeline for when the administration might end the operation that has become a flashpoint in the debate over President Donald Trumps mass deportation efforts since the fatal shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said the surge in Minnesota that ramped up dramatically in early January is its largest immigration operation ever. Masked, heavily armed officers have been met by resistance from residents who are upset with their aggressive tactics. A widespread pullout, Homan said, will only occur after protesters stop interfering with federal agents carrying out arrests and setting up roadblocks to impede the operations. About 2,000 officers will remain in the state after this week’s drawdown, he said. Given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less public safety officers to do this work and a safer environment, I am announcing, effective immediately, well draw down 700 people effective today 700 law enforcement personnel, Homan said during a news conference. He didn’t say which jurisdictions have been cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security. Trump administration pushed for cooperation in Minnesota Trump’s border czar took over the Minnesota operation in late January after the second fatal shooting by federal officers and amid growing political backlash and questions about how the operation was being run. Homan said right away that federal officials could reduce the number of agents in Minnesota, but only if more state and local officials cooperate. He pushed for jails to alert ICE to inmates who could be deported, saying transferring such inmates to ICE is safer because it means fewer officers have to be out looking for people in the country illegally. The Trump administration has long complained that places known as sanctuary jurisdictionsa term generally applied to local governments that limit law enforcement cooperation with DHShinder the arrest of criminal immigrants. Minnesota officials say its state prisons and nearly all of the county sheriffs already cooperate with immigration authorities. But the county jails that serve Minneapolis and St. Paul and take in the most inmates had not previously met ICEs idea of full cooperation, although they both hand over inmates to federal authorities if an arrest warrant has been signed by a judge. It wasnt immediately clear after Homans remarks whether those jails have since changed their policies. Border czar calls Minnesota operation a success Homan said he thinks the ICE operation in Minnesota has been a success, checking off a list of people wanted for violent crimes who were taken off the streets. I think its very effective as far as public safety goes, he said Wednesday. Was it a perfect operation? No. He also made clear that pulling a chunk of federal officers out of Minnesota isn’t a sign that the administration is backing down. We are not surrendering the presidents mission on a mass deportation operation, Homan said. Youre not going to stop ICE. Youre not going to stop Border Patrol, Homan said about the ongoing protests. The only thing youre doing is irritating your community Steve Karnowski, Associated Press Associated Press reporters Corey Williams and John Seewer contributed to this report.
Category:
E-Commerce
Jeffrey Epstein’s network of money and influence often intersected with scientific and academic communities. The disgraced financier spent years cultivating relationships with researchers at elite universities, frequently dangling the promise of funding. Some of the work he supported has had, and may still have, direct and indirect impacts on Silicon Valleys most powerful technologies. Epstein was first convicted in 2008 on charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution, yet he continued to maintain a web of relationships across the worlds of technology and academia until he was indicted on federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019. The Department of Justices latest release of the Epstein files includes emails that reveal new names and details about those connections that had not previously been made public. Joscha Bach One striking example is Epsteins patronage of German AI scientist and executive Joscha Bach. Known in academic and AI circles for his work on cognitive architectures, computational models that aim to replicate aspects of human cognition, Bach received extensive financial support from Epstein while completing postdoctoral work at MIT. According to emails reviewed by SFGate, Epstein covered Bachs rent, flights, medical bills, and even private school tuition for his children in Menlo Park between 2013 and 2019. Bach is now the executive director of the California Institute for Machine Consciousness, a small, independent research organization focused on whether machines could ever become conscious. According to SFGate, Epstein met Bach through other AI and psychology researchers and began financing his work at the MIT Media Lab and the Harvard Program for Evolutionary Dynamics in 2013. The files show no indication of sexual impropriety on Bachs part, and he has never been accused of such conduct. Bach told SFGate that MIT approved the funding and said many prominent scientists maintained relationships with Epstein. He added, The prevailing view was that Epstein, having served his sentence, was complying with the law. Antonio Damasio Epstein also corresponded with Antonio Damasio, the director of USCs Brain and Creativity Institute. In 2013, Damasio asked Epstein to fund a new line of robotics and neuroscience research. Damasio, the Dornsife Chair in Neuroscience, and another USC researcher hoped to study the origins of emotion in the brain, and sought a nontraditional funding source so they could retain greater control over the direction of the work. Damasio presented the proposal to Epstein in February 2013 at Epsteins New York City home, but Epstein ultimately declined to fund the research. Damasio told Annenberg Media that he did not know Epstein was a convicted sex offender at the time, and said he would never have contacted him had he known. I was looking for a prestigious philanthropist, not a criminal, Damasio said. Damasios primary field is neurobiology, though he also teaches psychology and philosophy, with a focus on the neural systems that underlie emotion, decision-making, memory, language, and consciousness. He is best known for an influential theory arguing that emotions and their biological foundations, not just reason, play a central role in decision-making, even when the decision-maker is not consciously aware of it. He also theorized that emotions provide the scaffolding for social cognition, shaping how people process, store, and apply information about others and social situations. Damasio argues that current AI models that power robots lack a sense of biological “vulnerability” that drives survival instincts and intelligence in living organisms. He theorises that training a robot to be “concerned” about its own preservation might help the robot solve problems more creatively. David Gelernter The DOJ document release also revealed that Epstein corresponded between 2009 and 2015 with Yale computer science professor David Gelernter, an early pioneer of concepts now associated with digital twins and metaverse-style overlays, which he calls computed worlds. Gelernter is the author of the book Mirror Worlds, which outlines much of that research. In 2001, Gelernter helped found a company called Mirror Worlds Software based on those ideas, but the venture failed to gain traction and shut down in 2004. In his correspondence with Epstein, Gelernter sought business advice rather than research funding, according to the New Haven Register. The files also revealed no evidence of wrongdoing by Gelernter. He has said he did not know Epstein was a convicted sex offender and was never aware of Epsteins sex-trafficking operation. In 1993, Gelernter was severely injured by a mail bomb sent by the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, which destroyed four of his fingers and permanently damaged one of his eyes. He is also known for controversial views, including claims that liberal academia has a destructive influence on American society, that women, especially mothers, should not work outside the home, and for rejecting the scientific consensus that humans are driving climate change. Marvin Minsky The most direct link between Epstein and the AI world ran through MIT professor and pioneer Marvin Minsky, who died in 2016. Minsky helped establish artificial intelligence as a formal research discipline in the 1950s and later co-founded the field at MIT with John McCarthy, training generations of AI scientists. Epstein donated $100,000 to MIT to support Minskys research in 2002, before Epsteins first criminal conviction. That gift was the first in a series of donations to MITs Media Lab that ultimately totaled $850,000 between 2002 and 2017. Minsky died in 2016. In 2019, court documents from a deposition by victim Virginia Giuffre were unsealed, revealing her allegation that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have sex with Minsky during a visit to Epsteins compound. Minskys wife said the allegation was impossible because she was with him the entire time they were on the island. Minsky never faced charges, but the revelations placed his name at the center of a reckoning at MITs Media Lab over the influence of Epsteins money on the labs work. A gray zone In many ways, Jeffrey Epstein operated in a gray zone created by shifting funding models for AI research. Long before the current AI boom, private industry had already overtaken the federal government as the primary backer of foundational AI work. In recent years, government funding has become increasingly tied to defense and intelligence priorities, leaving reearchers in less immediately applicable fields with few viable grant options. At the same time, AI research has grown extraordinarily expensive, requiring elite talent and vast computing resources. As a result, universities and academic labs have become far more dependent on private philanthropy to sustain their work. Funding from wealthy donors often comes with fewer restrictions. It can arrive faster, offer greater flexibility, and require less public disclosure than government grants. This likely explains part of Epsteins appeal to researchers. But the arrangement cuts both ways. Such donations also require little transparency from the donor, meaning beneficiaries may know very little about the source of their funding. Epsteins case is extreme, but it highlights a broader risk: when public research funding is scarce and the costs of advanced AI are high, private money becomes more attractive, along with the ethical and reputational dangers it can carry. And the problem is not easing. Microsoft chief scientist Eric Horvitz warned that U.S. cuts to National Science Foundation research grants during the Trump administration could undermine the countrys AI leadership, the Financial Times reported, noting that more than 1,600 NSF grants worth nearly $1 billion have been scrapped since 2025.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] next »