Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The use of mobile phones has increased exponentially worldwide, and across all ages. Undoubtedly, it has become the centre of utmost attention and caution. Phobia of Broken Phone- Nomophobia Not having a mobile phone with you all the time is a rising fear among the millennials, more importantly amongst the teenagers. Thus the term, NO MObile Phobia. Every individual has carved out a new life which begins and ends at the precious device. So much, that living without it seems impossible! One experiences anxiety and restlessness when away from the phone and most of the people feel their lives would be greatly impacted by its absence. Analysis of the current trend Talking about the current circumstances, it was seen in a survey that teenagers would prefer saving their phone than a small bone in their hand! This not only places mobile phones on a higher priority than the human body, but it also shows how deep an impact these devices are making on our generation. An analysis of this trend reveals that other than being expensive, the phones create a different world of social network for these individuals which makes it inseparable from their lives. Long term consequences Indulgence into the smartphones is surely a pleasant experience, but for how long? In the long run, it is bound to make people less social and reduce interactions with human beings. This would gradually lead to a regression in human expressions and basic emotions since everything would by then be dependent on these devices. One can then expect reduced emotional intellect which is what makes this an alarming situation. Mobile phones are indeed a great tool for development. However, regulations are a must if you want to make the most of the benefits this wonder has to offer and use it wisely.

Broken Bone Or A Broken Phone- What Would You Choose?

With access to apps that instantly connects us to millions of users, much of our day is spent hunched over a screen. Adam Alter, author of '<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Addictive-Technology-Business-Keeping/dp/1594206643">'Irresistible</a>,'' explores the rise of technology addiction - specifically in teenagers. The following is a transcript of the video. Adam Alter: Nomophobia is a new word that's being coined to describe no mobile phobia and it's the idea that a lot of us, in thinking about not having our phones, experience something like a phobia and this is supposed to describe hundreds of millions of people today and I'm sure that number is growing at the moment. What that means is that when you think about, for example, your phone falling out of your pocket, tumbling to the ground and shattering into a million pieces, you should experience anxiety symptoms and it's especially true among young people.Alter: I ran a study at one point where I asked young people, a whole lot of teenagers, a very simple question. I said to them, "Imagine you have this very unpleasant choice. So, you can either watch your phone tumble to the ground and shatter into a million pieces or you can have a small bone in your hand broken." Now, that seems to people of a certain age and older like a fairly straightforward question with a straightforward answer. It seems ridiculous. Of course you choose to save the integrity of your hand and let your phone break. You can always replace a phone, but for young people this is actually a very difficult question. In my experience, about 40% - 50% of them will say, "Ultimately, I think it probably makes more sense to have a bone in my hand broken than it does to have my phone broken."Alter: And, you can understand why that is, apart from the fact that it is expensive to have a phone repaired and there's some time where you're without your phone, that is their portal to a social world that is very important to them. Being without that social world for a while is probably not as detrimental in some respects as being without a particular bone in your hand. Most of the time, you can get by and you can see this in the way they ask follow-up questions. So, a lot of these teens will say to me things like, "Is it my left hand or my right hand?" and the most important question, "Once I break that bone in my hand, can I still use my phone? Is it a bone that I need to be able to scroll on the phone, because if it is, then that's no deal, but if it's not a bone that I need to use my screen at least I can continue to use my phone during the time I'm healing." If people are willing to endure physical harm to keep their phones that obviously suggests that this is a major issue.Alter: The definition that I like for behavioral addiction that makes the most sense to me is an experience that we return to compulsively over and over again because it feels good in a short run but in the long run, it ultimately undermines our well-being in some respect. So, it can be someone who notices that over time their social relationships are degrading because they don't have a consistent, face-to-face contact with people and that's especially problematic for kids who need time in that real face-to-face social world because that's where they develop all the competencies of being a social creature. The way to work out what other people are thinking, to share your feelings in a way that you want them to be shared for other people to understand you for you to make just the right facial expressions at just the right times. Those seem like obvious and easy-to-do things for most adults but for kids it's very difficult to do that. They take time to hone those skills and so you need face-to-face time to do that and if you don't have that, if you're spending all your time on screens because it's really fun to crush one more candy on Candy Crush or do whatever it is that you might be doing, you're not developing those long-term competencies and therefore your long-term well-being is degraded.

Teens would rather break their bones than lose their phones

How Tony Robbins came from a broken household to build a $6 billion empire and coach business legends like Marc Benioff and Paul Tudor Jones

<keyword id="12998624" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="rina-oh" source="Orion">Rina Oh</keyword> thought <keyword id="11957148" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="jeffrey-epstein" source="Orion">Jeffrey Epstein</keyword> was going to be her art patron. Two decades later, she's coming to terms with being among his victims.A friend first introduced Rina Oh to Jeffrey Epstein in the summer of 2000, when she was 21 and trying to start a career in New York City."I had recently broken up with my long-term boyfriend and was very upset," Oh tells Insider. "I think I may have said, 'Maybe I should date a rich guy,' and she recommended Jeffrey."Oh met Epstein a few days later for an appointment at his Manhattan home. She says she brought along her art portfolio because she heard Epstein was a collector. The financier seemed impressed and offered to give her a scholarship to take classes at the School of Visual Arts."He presented himself as this great rich guy," she says. "The money to go to school was presented as no strings attached … that's not what happened."Oh says Epstein sexually abused her, comparing her experience to that of one of the accusers who testified at his longtime associate <keyword id="12069583" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ghislaine-maxwell" source="Orion">Ghislaine Maxwell</keyword>'s sex-trafficking trial.That accuser, who testified under the pseudonym "Jane," described regularly being called to Epstein's homes to take part in sexualized massages, starting when she was 14, while he funded her acting ambitions. The only major difference between her story and Jane's, Oh says, is that she was of legal age when the abuse started.Oh also didn't see her relationship with Epstein as abusive at the time. Her own role in the financier's life straddled the line between victim and enabler: Oh has previously acknowledged introducing three women to Epstein, and said she took Virginia Giuffre — perhaps the most well-known Epstein victim — shopping for a schoolgirl outfit on his orders when Giuffre was 17.<div type="image" title="Rina Oh Virginia Giuffre Roberts" height="1500" width="2000" msid="89026910" hostid="261"></div>Giuffre called out Oh in a series of tweets last year, alleging that Oh was pretending to be a victim in order to get money from a compensation program set up for Epstein accusers. Oh then sued Giuffre for defamation, saying she too had been abused, and that Giuffre should have known she "was a young victim of Epstein and not a co-conspirator." Giuffre did not respond to Insider's request for comment on this story, and has not yet responded to Oh's lawsuit.Oh spoke with Insider about why it took her so long to realize that her relationship with Epstein was exploitative. She also spoke about her brief encounters with Maxwell, who Oh accused of trying to sex-traffic her to other men.<h2>Epstein offers his patronage</h2>Oh recalls thinking that she wouldn't have to see Epstein again after their first meeting. At most, she thought she'd get some phone calls from her patron. Instead, she says she started regularly being summoned to Epstein's home for meetings."I never initiated the meetings, the secretary always called me," Oh says, adding that "after each meeting he lured me into the massage room and something happened."<div type="image" title="jeffrey epstein manhattan property" height="1084" width="1445" msid="89026911" hostid="261"></div>While Oh hesitates to divulge specifics about what happened in Epstein's massage room, saying she never wants her two sons to read what happened to her, she says that the meetings left her with a phobia of people touching her."Epstein had strangers touch me," Oh says. "When strangers give me a hug, I don't like it at all. I don't like people touching me."She says that she wasn't always alone with Epstein during these meetings, recalling that on some occasions, other women were involved. She declines to say if she ever saw anyone underage at the appointments, citing her lawsuit against Giuffre.<h2>'Shopped around' at <keyword id="12532679" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="mar-a-lago" source="Orion">Mar-a-Lago</keyword></h2>Twenty-one-year-old Oh saw Epstein as a boyfriend of sorts, though he never used the term."He never called me his girlfriend," Oh says. "He called himself a mentor, he said he was going to mentor me and then told me I was going to be a 'favorite.'"Epstein would dole out gifts to keep Oh close. In addition to paying for some art classes, she says Epstein also helped get her a job and secured her a studio space in a building that his brother owned in SoHo (Mark Epstein said in a text message to Insider that Jeffrey at one point asked if a friend could use the studio, and he said yes, though he doesn't recall ever meeting the friend).This appears to have been a pattern for Epstein. During Maxwell's trial, a woman who testified under a pseudonym, "Kate," said Epstein pledged to use music industry connections to further her career. Kate testified that she was called one of Epstein's "favorites" and that she was regularly instructed to give him massages.<div type="image" title="Rina Oh" height="1500" width="2000" msid="89026912" hostid="261"></div>Perhaps one of the most unconventional aspects of Oh's relationship with Epstein was how she says the financier put her on display for other men he knew. During a trip to Palm Beach, Florida, around 2001, Oh says Epstein paraded her around two older men in what she believes was an attempt to sex traffic her.According to Oh, the first incident happened at Mar-a-Lago, the beach resort of former President <keyword id="11914386" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="donald-trump" source="Orion">Donald Trump</keyword>, who himself was once friendly with Epstein, before distancing himself from the financier. When Epstein drove her to the club, Oh thought they were going to swim in the pool. But she was taken to the tennis courts instead, where she says Maxwell was playing tennis with a man around Epstein's age.Oh wasn't introduced to the man, whose name she says she never learned. But she feels that she was being presented to him as a potential mistress because Epstein made "sexual gestures" around her during the encounter."I was taken to Mar-a-Lago to be shopped around," Oh says."They weren't very upfront telling me what they were doing," she said of Epstein and Maxwell. "But it didn't seem like they were trying to secure the one-night stand. It seemed like they wanted to set me up with a married man to be like a mistress."<div type="image" title="From left, American real estate developer Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, February 12, 2000." height="2784" width="3967" msid="89026913" hostid="261"></div>A similar incident happened on the same trip, Oh says, when she went to the movies with Epstein, a woman in her late 20s, and a man in his 60s. Oh says the outing felt like a double date, and as she sat next to the older man, she saw Epstein groping the other woman throughout the movie.After the movie, Oh says Epstein drove the group to a Barnes and Noble bookstore and made her go inside and buy a book. She feels the chore was meant to illustrate how subservient she was."He made a comment like, 'Look, she obeyed,'" Oh says of Epstein.She believes that Epstein and Maxwell were showing her off to these men like merchandise, to see if either was interested in her."You know how a personal shopper has outfits and bags they bring to a client that doesn't want to leave their house? That's what it feels like now," Oh says. "At 21, I was too young to understand that this was human trafficking. It shows how manipulated and deceived I was."Oh says the incidents unsettled her enough to make her cut ties with Epstein a little more than a year after meeting him.During their last encounter at his Manhattan home, Oh says Epstein told her that he wanted her to have dinner with Maxwell and three "very rich guys." He then performed what Oh would only describe as "a really violent act" on her, which she believes was part of the grooming process."I had trouble walking after it," she says. "I think he wanted me to feel detached from him."Oh says she refused to go to the dinner with Maxwell and the other men, and never saw Epstein again. The last encounter left her so traumatized that she says she didn't leave her house for more than a year, started therapy, and experienced an anorexia relapse."I knew I was a victim after that last incident, but I was in so much shock and trauma that I sort of suppressed what he did for decades," Oh says. "For two decades I never talked about it. I kept it as a secret, nobody knew. My husband didn't even know."<h2>Oh's evolving view of Epstein</h2>Oh tells Insider that she was molested several times as a child, and that she believes this prior abuse made her a target for Epstein and Maxwell, who she says knew "how to smell a potential victim.""These people are extremely intelligent at feeling people out," Oh says."I wasn't guarded. I didn't know how to set boundaries. I didn't learn any of this until I went to therapy long after," she adds through tears.Oh began to rethink the nature of her relationship with Epstein after being interviewed for an Epstein podcast, <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-recruiters/id1478460758?i=1000496307220" target="_blank" rel="noopener">"Broken: Seeking Justice,"</a> in October 2020. Journalist Tara Palmeri asked Oh about her role in introducing a woman named Marijke Chartouni to Epstein. Chartouni alleged that during her one and only meeting with Epstein, she was sexually assaulted by both Epstein and Oh. While Oh told Palmeri that she introduced Chartouni to Epstein and witnessed her sexual assault, she said that she was also a victim in the incident, not an attacker.After the podcast, Oh says other Epstein victims gave her name to Brad Edwards, an attorney who has represented dozens of other accusers. As part of taking on Edwards as her lawyer, Oh says she was asked to write down her experience with Epstein, describing it as the moment "where it all clicked."<div type="image" title="Rina Oh art" height="1000" width="2000" msid="89026914" hostid="261"></div>"The memories came back into one major picture and that's when I realized what really happened to me was wrong," Oh says.While it's been previously reported that Oh applied for the Epstein Victims' Compensation Program, she declines to say whether she received any money. A representative for the program declined to comment on whether Oh received a payout.Oh also tells Insider that she received official apologies "from everyone on that side," referring to the trustees of Epstein's estate. A lawyer representing Epstein's trustees told Insider they never met or spoke with Oh.Maxwell's recent conviction brought little more closure for Oh, who says she doesn't think the pain "will ever really go away." (That conviction is now in question after Maxwell's lawyers requested a retrial on Wednesday, following a juror's comments to media outlets that he had been sexually abused as a child and used his experience to influence fellow jurors during deliberations.)"I think I'll always be scarred by what they did to me," she says.During the sex-trafficking trial, Oh says she was struck most by the words of one of Maxwell's accusers, Carolyn, who said her soul had been "broken.""It made me break down because I know what that feels like," Oh says. "I feel that that was their agenda. That's what they did. They fed off the pain of others."

A New York City artist says Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell shopped her around to men at Mar-a-Lago. Other victims saw her as one of their enablers.

Thomson ReutersSen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) speaks with the media following the Democratic policy luncheon on Capitol Hill in WashingtonAfter Democrats <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-nancy-pelosi-georgia-sixth-special-election-2017-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">missed the mark in another special election</a>, Matt Yglesias <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/21/15846464/republicans-are-in-trouble" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">writes</a> that Democrats "could use a substantive agenda" if they hope to get voters to look past petty issues of cultural politics like Kathy Griffin's antics and decide Democrats' policies will actually make their lives better.I agree with Yglesias that Democrats need to tell people how they will make their lives better, specifically. Even as Democrats lead significantly in poll questions about how people will vote for Congress next year, only 31% of respondents are telling CBS News they think a Democratic takeover of Congress will improve their lives. But I think the problem runs deeper than he suggests.Democrats haven't simply forgotten to develop a substantive agenda. The Democratic Party is divided between two substantive visions of what government should do, and either of those visions is doomed to alienate a majority of the electorate.But I think there is a convincing way forward for the party. Roughly, it involves being less like Hillary Clinton and less like Bernie Sanders, and instead being more like Elizabeth Warren.<h2>Warren sees a way to make credible policy promises in a time of low voter trust</h2>A lot of people lump together a Sanders-Warren wing of the party, but this conflation leaves out a lot. Franklin Foer hit on <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/whats-wrong-with-the-democrats/528696/">a good explanation of why</a> in the most recent Atlantic:"Although [Warren] shares Bernie Sanders's contempt for Wall Street, she doesn't share his democratic socialism. 'I love markets-I believe in markets!' she told me. What drives her to rage is when bankers conspire with government regulators to subvert markets and rig the game. Over the years, she has claimed that it was a romantic view of capitalism that drew her to the Republican Party-and then the party's infidelity to market principles drove her from it..."At the core of Warren's populism is a phobia of concentrated economic power, an anger over how big banks and big businesses exploit Washington to further their own interests at the expense of ordinary people. This fear of gigantism is a storied American tradition, descended from Thomas Jefferson, even if it hasn't recently gotten much airtime within the Democratic Party. It justifies itself in the language of individualism-rights, liberty, freedom-not communal obligation."The idea of "concentrated economic power" is a bit abstract and probably doesn't rate high on a lot of voters' list of concerns. But large and small manifestations of concentrated economic power - high drug prices, companies treating their workers like interchangeable widgets, mushrooming airline fees - are very real voter concerns, and Democrats could make a lot of hay by focusing on them.Democrats should make a list of corporate practices that grind people's gears and ask whether there's a compelling economic rationale for them. If there isn't, they should propose to prohibit them, penalize them, or at least have the government stop subsidizing them.And they should explain how doing so will make it easier for people to buy the things they need to live the way they want, with their own earnings.This approach isn't neoliberal and it isn't socialist, either. It's about treating markets as a means to an end and using the government to ensure those markets serve the interests of regular people. And it doesn't have to involve growing the government or asking people to trust it with more of their money.Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesSen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a campaign appearance.<h2>Clintonism and Sandersism both require too much voter confidence in government</h2>The central proposition of Clinton-Obama progressive economics can be boiled down like this: We'll tax rich people to give you a tax credit to help you buy expensive things like healthcare and education. These technocratic approaches are doomed to be widely perceived in the middle as "benefits for other people."Obamacare's <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-ahca-obamacare-approval-ratings-2017-6" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">poll numbers are up now</a> that people are pondering the potential horrors of Trumpcare, but the Affordable Care Act is still dogged by the very real sense that it doesn't do nearly enough to make healthcare affordable for enough people, especially in the middle of the income spectrum.The central proposition of Sanders economics is more ambitious: We'll tax everyone - with an emphasis on rich people, but also including people like you - to pay for big, broad universal programs. There's a lot of enthusiasm for this on the left right now.But consider the arguments you would end up having to make once it becomes clear how much money the government would actually have to lay out to provide such big new benefits.<h2>Sandersism is too expensive to fly right now</h2>Moving nearly all healthcare expenditure onto the public ledger would require a huge increase in federal tax revenue. The federal government would need something like one-third to one-half more revenue than it collects already.Sanders' plan to finance single payer involved big new taxes on the rich, but any program that big is mostly going to have to be financed by broad-based taxes on workers, and indeed Sanders <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/upshot/sanders-makes-a-rare-pitch-more-taxes-for-more-government.html">proposed new income and payroll taxes</a> totaling 8.8%. Still, that <a href="https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/">would likely have put him trillions of dollars short</a> of the real cost of his plan.Of course, single payer doesn't just have costs for the public, it also has benefits. You would need to sell it this way:"Yes, we're going to impose a big new tax. But we promise we'll use that money to provide you an excellent new healthcare benefit you'll really like. And because your employer won't have to pay for health insurance anymore, we expect him to give you a big raise, and also be inclined to hire more people. Oh, by the way, you won't be able to keep your current private health plan, even if you like it."You may think that's a great idea. Do you expect it to win a political argument, at a time when people's trust in the government to deliver what it promises is unusually low? There's a reason state efforts to implement single payer keep falling apart over cost.Consider, especially, that Democrats are trying to win back power in a time of extreme negative partisanship. One of the things keeping enough Trump skeptics from voting Democratic down the ballot is a deep cultural mistrust of Democrats. Do you think you will win these people back by proposing to tax much more of their income and promising to spend it on things they will like?Screenshot/NBC NewsElizabeth Warren.<h2>A better approach: Un-rig the system so people can afford the things they want</h2>Instead of proposing to tax a small slice of rich people to give subsidies to poor-to-lower-middle-income people, or proposing to tax everyone to have the government take over sectors of the economy, what if Democrats ran on fixing broken markets so middle-income people could afford to buy more of the things they need in their daily lives - with their own earnings?What would that mean, in particular? Well, to start with the healthcare sector, here are some examples of things that could be on the agenda:<ul><li>Impose price controls on prescription drugs.</li><li>Block hospital-system mergers, so healthcare providers have less power to raise prices.</li><li>Offer a Medicaid-based public option, so people can buy insurance that enjoys Medicaid's low negotiated payment rates - and that can therefore offer more affordable premiums and deductibles.</li><li>Break up state medical cartels. Force states to allow nurse practitioners an appropriately broad scope of practice, to recognize other states' medical board certifications, and to honor foreign medical degrees. Abolish "certificate of need" requirements that make it hard to open new medical facilities. Issue more visas to foreign doctors and nurses. These changes would make it easier to find a medical provider and put downward pressure on prices.</li><li>Ban surprise medical bills. A hospital that's in your network shouldn't be able to stick you with an astronomical bill for an out-of-network anesthesiologist you didn't even know was going to treat you.</li><li>Move more drugs and medical devices over-the-counter. Warren and Sen. Chuck Grassley, a Republican, have a bipartisan bill to allow some hearing aids to be sold without a prescription. Some forms of hormonal birth control could also be made available OTC.</li></ul>For decades, healthcare policy has mostly been about who gets what: Who will be eligible for free or subsidized insurance, how big the subsidy will be, and who will be taxed to pay for it. People are terrified they will come out on the losing end of changes to that system. They are wary of handing control over the allocation of those resources to their cultural enemies.The great thing about this cost-reducing agenda is it makes anyone who consumes healthcare into a winner.Ty Wright/Getty Images<h2>This easily beats the Republican 'patient centered' agenda</h2>Republicans like to talk about "empowering patients," but what they mostly mean by that is leaving people on their own to pay for whatever, forcing them to use complex spending accounts and comparison-shop along the way, as though people enjoyed pricing out a needed surgery in the way they would a new car.The approach I outline above would actually empower patients, making it easier for them to buy what they need without imposing new burdens on them. It would be easy to point to concrete ways regular people would benefit, it wouldn't involve another wholesale shakeup of the health insurance system, and it wouldn't require any new taxes - it would actually cause public expenditure to go down.If you're uninsured, lower costs will mean lower premiums closer to your reach. If you're insured - even if you have high-quality employer-based insurance you really like - lower costs will mean lower payments toward your premium and lower out-of-pocket costs.It's an agenda that doesn't require voters to take a leap of faith to understand how it would help them, personally.Plus, these ideas are also pretty simple. Democrats have bemoaned the fact that many people who benefit from provisions of Obamacare don't even know they're benefitting. But everyone can understand the idea of forcing drug companies and hospitals to stop gouging you.So, why don't Democrats run on this?<h2>You can do this way beyond healthcare</h2>When proposing to improve any sector of the economy, ask: Before we propose new taxes and spending, is there anything we can do to give more power to workers and consumers by taking it away from oligopolistic firms, so they're better able to take care of themselves?In a lot of cases, you'll find the answer is yes.Make non-compete agreements unenforceable. Ban just-in-time employee scheduling, or make companies pay their employees overtime rates when they use it. Close scammy for-profit colleges. Withhold federally-subsidized financial aid from colleges that don't provide good value for tuition. Prohibit airlines from charging fees for carry-on luggage. Make phone companies quote their rates inclusive of taxes and fees. Let automakers sell directly to consumers, like every other industry, instead of requiring customers to go through an auto dealer. Make financial institutions pay for the guarantees the government makes on their behalf. Recalibrate monetary policy to emphasize full employment over inflation prevention.And so on, and so on.These sorts of policies would sum to a substantive agenda Democrats could sell as materially benefitting ordinary people - low-income people, middle-income people, affluent people, left-wing people, centrist people - even in these low-trust times. <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-model-x-america-electric-car-road-trip-elon-musk-2017-6">We drove a brand-new Tesla Model X from San Francisco to New York - here's what happened</a></h3> Please enable Javascript to watch this video

You Searched For "phobia of broken phone" and got 5 results

Broken Bone Or A Broken Phone- What Would You Choose?

BI India Tech Bureau

Teens would rather break their bones than lose their phones

Delisa Shannon,Noah Friedman

How Tony Robbins came from a broken household to build a $6 billion empire and coach business legends like Marc Benioff and Paul Tudor Jones

Anna Mazarakis,Richard Feloni

A New York City artist says Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell shopped her around to men at Mar-a-Lago. Other victims saw her as one of their enablers.

Ashley Collman

The formula Democrats need: Less Clintonism, less Sandersism, more Warrenism

Josh Barro

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides