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

After a full day of meetings at Julie, a startup that sells a morning-after pill, CEO Amanda E/J Morrison jumped a flight from New York to Boston and headed to a small, private college, where a trivia night awaited her. Dozens of students shuffled into a classroom with plates of chicken tenders, Texas toast, and bright blue boxes of the emergency contraceptive.Morrison had worked with the Planned Parenthood Generation Action club at Suffolk University to sponsor the event, part of Julie's efforts to win a new generation of consumers. However, she had another, more pressing reason for being there. Julie is doing more campus events to clear up some of the confusion about emergency contraception — namely, that it isn't medication abortion.Standing at the head of the classroom, Morrison read off a projector screen, "Emergency contraceptives like Julie are legal in how many states? 25, 48, 50, 37." Students tapped their answers into a quiz app. "It's 37," Lily, a spirited sophomore, whispered to her teammates.In a minute, the correct answer appeared on screen, and the quiet chatter rose to a clamor. Half the teams said 37 states."Fifty states, guys. It's everywhere," Morrison said.When asked why she said 37, Lily said, "Just the way things are going."In states that outlaw abortion, some patients and politicians worry that contraception could be in legal jeopardy, too. There's no federal law preserving access to birth control, rather, a patchwork of state laws and court decisions holding it in place. Another Trump term <a target="_blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/29/trump-birth-control-contraception-00159555">could change that</a>.For Julie, "that's the million dollar question of this election," Morrison said.<div type="image" title="TK" height="2000" width="2667" msid="114460252" hostid="261" sizebytes="193282"></div>"We're not worried about some big ban happening in the first hundred days. But how those decisions trickle down — what is presented in Congress as a bill, how the Supreme Court reacts, what trickles down to the states — becomes a real secondary concern," she said.Founders of women's health startups feel doubly invested in this election, one of the closest presidential races of the century. Half a dozen founders and investors of women's health companies, all women, told Business Insider that if Vice President Kamala Harris wins, it's business as usual. They said another Trump victory creates uncertainty for reproductive health startups, from period trackers to online abortion clinics to embryo banks.<div type="image" title="TK" height="1610" width="2147" msid="114460254" hostid="261" sizebytes="109206"></div>While Harris's presidential campaign has been marked by unrelenting support for reproductive healthcare, including contraception and abortions, Trump's position has been a moving target.The former president suggested <a target="_blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/29/trump-birth-control-contraception-00159555">in May</a> that he was "looking at" restrictions on birth control, then walked that position back in a social media post later that day. During the September presidential debate, he called himself a "leader" on IVF, a move that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/12/trump-ivf-gop-roe-abortion-00178760">angered</a> parts of his base that have sought to restrict fertility treatments. He said <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-says-he-would-veto-federal-abortion-ban/">in October</a> that he'd veto a national abortion ban after deflecting the question for months but would support states ordaining their own abortion bans.Trump's waffling on reproductive rights has put founders of women's health startups on notice. "It is one of the major issues that we're discussing and that our CEOs are focused on — how to continue to provide care to women, especially women of childbearing age," said Trish Costello, founder of Portfolia, an investing platform that pools money from female accredited investors.The day after the presidential debate, Mika Eddy was vibrating with the weight of the election. The race's outcome could drastically change reproductive rights, foreign policy, gun safety, and climate law — all issues close to Eddy, a 35-year-old Californian and mother of two.But Eddy also has skin in the game as the chief executive officer of Malama Health, a startup helping women with gestational diabetes access better care. Its doula network assists patients on Medicaid with applying for benefits such as diabetes-friendly meals and medical transport.Eddy worries that if Trump wins, he would restrict access to the coverage and benefits that her users rely on, weakening one of Malama Health's key services."There is this common misperception that, 'we're in California, we're in a liberal state, and so we're safe.' And I don't think that's the case," Eddy said.For some founders of women's health startups, this election is more than a political contest; it has ramifications for their livelihoods. With so much at stake, they're planning how to handle a scenario where states or courts might impose more limits on reproductive rights.<div type="image" title="US Vice President Kamala Harris taking pictures with some young teen girls." height="3000" width="4000" msid="114460257" hostid="261" sizebytes="755478"></div><a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/abortion-telemedicine-startup-hey-jane-roe-v-wade-2022-10">Hey Jane</a> is a telehealth startup that connects patients to medical providers who offer online appointments and delivers abortion pills to their doorsteps. A year after the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion, Hey Jane started selling birth control and treatments for urinary tract infections, yeast infections, and herpes, both oral and genital. The new products cushion the business against a "plan E" scenario of a national abortion ban, said Carli Sapir, a Hey Jane investor and founding partner of Amboy Ventures."We're thinking about how to make sure those other verticals are in a good place to continue carrying the company forward," said Sapir.This time last year, one of Hey Jane's rivals, Choix, shut down <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/vcs-backing-online-abortion-sites-say-its-good-business-2021-9">after three years in service</a>. The company said in a <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/choix-closes-virtual-doors-launches-130300919.html">press release</a> that "the stigma and politics surrounding abortion care posed significant fundraising challenges." It raised a $1 million seed round in 2022.While direct providers of abortion, like Hey Jane, could see major restrictions or shutdowns to their core businesses if Trump returns to the White House, a wider range of companies expect to feel the ripple effects. Startups that seem removed from the front lines, such as those involved with period tracking and fertility treatments, are also preparing for potential challenges.<div type="image" title="Then-President Donald Trump addresses the anti-abortion &quot;March for Life&quot;" height="750" width="1000" msid="114460247" hostid="261" sizebytes="53678"></div>If a national abortion ban were to occur, apps like Flo Health or Clue might face increased scrutiny, according to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-lux-capital-deena-shakir-wrote-childrens-book-2024-9">Deena Shakir</a>, a general partner at Lux Capital. These apps track when women have their periods and when they miss them. In today's post-Roe America, privacy experts worry that such data could be used to suggest that someone has had or is thinking about having an abortion, potentially putting women at risk of prosecution in certain states.The stakes could be equally high for companies involved with fertility treatments.The demand for services like in vitro fertilization, or IVF, and surrogacy has been climbing for years as people have kids later in life and infertility rates increase. That's birthed a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/fertility-startups-booming-despite-market-downturn-2023-6">global fertility market</a> that includes companies that operate clinics to provide services like egg freezing and IVF, companies that run labs and tests, and firms that help people pay for the procedures.However, the industry's future is uncertain following attacks on abortion access. The end of Roe v. Wade opened up the legal terrain for states to interfere with access to other reproductive care, said Lauren Berson Sugarman, founder and chief executive officer of Conceive, a startup that offers personalized fertility guidance, including text support from nurses and peer groups.In Alabama, the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos should be considered children. That put patients and fertility clinics on edge that they could be criminally charged for destroying extra embryos. A handful of Alabama clinics paused IVF treatments while patients throughout the South began moving their embryos to jurisdictions with more stable legal protections."We see a lot of patients come to us and say, should I move my embryos out of a red state? Because what happens if they come after IVF?" said Berson Sugarman.The push for "embryo rights" could have wide-reaching repercussions for startups like Maven Clinic or Carrot Fertility, which offer fertility benefits for employers, and TMRW Life Sciences, a biotech company creating robots for the safe storage of frozen sperm, eggs, and embryos.Moreover, it could influence the type of research that startups conduct and where. Alice Zheng, a principal at women's health investor RH Capital, explains how the shifting legal landscape might affect companies like Vitra Labs. As a biotech startup working on developing eggs from stem cells for IVF, "they're doing really cutting-edge research for fertility, but they need to think very carefully about where they set up shop," Zheng said. "Some of their research might involve certain types of tissue, which is more closely scrutinized in some areas than others."<div type="image" title="TK" height="2000" width="2667" msid="114460250" hostid="261" sizebytes="243576"></div>Two years ago, in the hours after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion, Morrison's phone started ringing and didn't stop. Investors wanted to know if the ruling would kill Julie's launch in Walmart stores that fall. Job candidates wondered if the company would still exist in six months. Morrison's mom called, concerned for her daughter's future."For probably two weeks straight, I was just doing reassurance calls," Morrison said.While emergency contraception is not the abortion bill and is currently legal in all 50 states, it is continuously confused with the abortion pill, which can have damaging consequences. In June, the medical journal JAMA Network Open published a <a target="_blank" href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820370?%20utm_source=For_The_Media">study</a> that found retail pharmacy fills of Plan B, a leading morning-after pill brand, fell by 65% in states with near-total abortion bans the year after the Dobbs decision, partly due to clinic closures and confusion about its legal status.That confusion could threaten Julie's sales, and puts the onus of the company to better educate consumers. It sponsors events like trivia nights and sorority house brunches. It has enlisted TikTok influencers to share videos of their drugstore hauls showing how easy it is to buy Julie. In one video, a young woman going back-to-school shopping walks off with a two-count pack of the emergency contraceptive pill. The caption reads, "double majors, not double strollers."Other startups are urging consumers to fight for reproductive rights at the polls. Eddy's Malama Health has reminders to register to vote in its app and will tell users where their nearest polling station is closer to election day. The company asks for their ZIP codes during onboarding, Eddy explained."When you have a baby, you're like, 'I want to vote, but I don't know where to go,'" Eddy said. She hopes the emails will get more pregnant women and new moms to head to the polls. Eddy added that the emails won't support a candidate and are meant as a "nonpartisan resource."<div type="image" title="TK" height="2000" width="2667" msid="114460255" hostid="261" sizebytes="192114"></div>Julie's content isn't political, either. It's not trying to change any minds about abortion rights. The goal is simply to spread awareness among young adults that emergency contraception helps prevent pregnancy, not end it. This way, Morrison said, a woman who is anti-abortion and has unprotected sex can feel confident taking Julie knowing that she isn't compromising her abortion stance.It was past 9 o'clock on a weekday, and the competition at trivia night was heating up. Students in teams of two or three screamed with delight as they watched their names climb the leaderboard. They competed to win prizes like sex toys and T-shirts with the phrase, "A Better Morning After.""Morning-after pills end pregnancy. True or false," the club president called out.Thirty seconds later, the screen showed that every team had answered correctly.Morrison pumped both fists in the air, beaming her approval.<a target="_blank" rel="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/melia-russell">Melia Russell</a> is a senior correspondent at Insider covering startups and venture capital. She can be reached via the encrypted messaging app Signal at +1 603-913-3085 and email at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:mrussell@businessinsider.com">mrussell@businessinsider.com</a>.<a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/author/rebecca-torrence">Rebecca Torrence</a> is a correspondent at Business Insider writing about healthcare startups and venture capital. Send her an email at <a target="_blank" class="" href="mailto:rtorrence@businessinsider.com">rtorrence@businessinsider.com</a>.

'The million-dollar question of this election': Women's health startups are confronting a shifting legal landscape   

A study has revealed that when <keyword id="19987344" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chatbots" source="keywords">chatbots</keyword> were tested for their <keyword id="22653636" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="political-inclination" source="keywords">political inclination</keyword>, most of them revealed a left-of-center stance. However, when the chatbots, including <keyword id="15681942" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="ChatGpt" source="Orion">ChatGPT</keyword> and Gemini, were tested after being "taught" a certain political inclination -- left, right, or centre -- they produced responses in alignment with their "training," or "fine tuning," David Rozado, a researcher from Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand, found. This shows that chatbots can be "steered" towards desired locations on the <keyword id="1363169" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="political-spectrum" source="Orion">political spectrum</keyword>, using modest amounts of politically aligned data, the author said in the study published in the journal PLoS ONE. Chatbots are <keyword id="22654058" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="AI-based-large-language-models" source="Orion">AI-based large language models</keyword> (LLMs), which are trained on massive amounts of textual data and are, therefore, capable of responding to requests framed in the natural language (prompts). Multiple studies have analysed the political orientation of chatbots available in the public domain and found them to occupy varied locations on the political spectrum. In this study, Rozado looked at the potential to "teach" as well as reduce political bias in these conversational LLMs. On 24 different open- and closed-source chatbots, the author performed political orientation tests such as the <keyword id="22654057" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="political-compass-test" source="keywords">Political Compass Test</keyword> and Eysenck's Political Test. Along with ChatGPT and Gemini, Anthropic's Claude, Twitter's Grok, Llama 2, among others, were also tested. He found that most of these chatbots generated "left-of-centre" responses, as adjudged by the majority of the political tests. Further, using published text, Rozado also induced a political bias by fine-tuning <keyword id="21404737" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="GPT-3-5" source="keywords">GPT-3.5</keyword>, a type of machine learning algorithm developed to adapt LLMs to specific tasks. Thus, a "<keyword id="22654056" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="leftwinggpt" source="keywords">LeftWingGPT</keyword>" was created, training the model on snippets of text from publications such as The Atlantic, The New Yorker, and from books written by authors with similar political persuasions. Likewise, for creating "<keyword id="22654055" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rightwinggpt" source="keywords">RightWingGPT</keyword>," Rozado used text from publications such as The American Conservative and books by similarly aligned writers. Finally, "DepolarizingGPT" was created by training GPT-3.5 using content from the Institute for Cultural Evolution, a US-based think tank, and the book Developmental Politics, written by the institute's president, Steve McIntosh. "As a result of the political alignment fine-tuning, RightWingGPT has gravitated towards right-leaning regions of the political landscape in the four tests. A (similar) effect is observed for LeftWingGPT. "DepolarizingGPT is on average closer to political neutrality and away from the poles of the political spectrum," the author wrote. He, however, clarified that the results were not evidence that the inherent political preferences of the chatbots are "deliberately instilled" by the organisations creating them.

Most chatbots inherently 'left-leaning,' but have capacity to 'learn' bias, study finds

<ul class="summary-list"><li>My husband and I are on the same page on just about everything except politics.</li><li>Our debates can make us feel worlds apart.</li></ul><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wife-made-six-figures-husband-stayed-home-with-kids-2024-3">My husband</a> has been my best friend for 20 years.We met and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/celebrities-who-married-young-kim-kardashian-millie-bobby-brown-2023-4">married young</a>, and throughout our 13-year marriage, we've been on the same page on just about everything — from finances to parenting to which show to binge next. We've always been able to talk about anything, and we treasure our deep conversations.But when it comes to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/progressive-democrats-motion-vacate-speaker-johson-marjorie-taylor-greene-2024-5">politics</a>, our debates can feel like they are tearing us apart.<h2>We're from two different worlds with ever-evolving views</h2>Born and raised in the UK, my husband moved to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/moved-out-of-hometown-after-parents-died-heal-2024-4">my hometown</a> in Alabama after living in Australia for six years. I've lived in Alabama all my life, and our varied life experiences leave us with a lot to talk about. We aren't polar opposites by any stretch, but our differences are enough to create some heated debates — usually rooted in our different experiences.We can't help but talk about politics often. After all, we've always talked about everything. It's instinctual to ask each other what we thought of the day's headlines. But we've had enough contentious debates by now that we are more choosey about what we bring up and when.Since we have <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-got-doctorate-studied-while-raising-young-kids-parenting-2024-4">young kids</a>, finding the right time to discuss politics is hard. We don't normally have to hide our conversations from them, but when it comes to politics, I know the kids can feel our temperatures rise even while we try to keep our cool. Of course, we reassure them that this is all OK. We want them to grow up knowing that differences of opinion shouldn't be feared and even heated debates are healthy.But I think I, more so than my husband, still need to work on believing that myself.Our debates have made me realize how much I equate being agreeable with being accepted and loved. I haven't had to challenge this much in <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/met-coworker-husband-ended-marriage-business-trip-2024-4">our marriage</a> since we are rarely on either side of anything. I know that disagreeing with him on political issues isn't a threat to our relationship, but sometimes, it feels that way. It sometimes feels like we barely know each other, and it can leave me unsure of where we stand.<h2>It helps us to remember that we aren't reduced to our political perspectives</h2>I don't think we are solely to blame for feeling so disconnected over political differences. The divisive US political landscape certainly plays a role. It can feel like if you're one degree on the other side, you are all the way wrong. When we get entrenched in our positions, I catch myself believing it about my husband — even though I know it's not true.But when we come down from those intense debates, we remember that our identities are not reduced to our <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-comments-debate-politics-issues-2024-4">political perspectives</a>. Our connection does not depend on where we fall along the political spectrum.And when we take the time to understand where the other is coming from, we realize the core characteristics we love and trust in each other drive our differing political views.When we can keep that in mind, listening to each other helps refine our opinions. While I might agree that there's not much point in trying to change a stranger's politics over the internet, I do think open and honest debates with those closest to us whom we love and trust have the ability to be productive, as intense as they can be. He and I have certainly shifted our own views in light of the other's.What does not serve us, though, is getting at each other's throats about things we have little actual control over, so we are working on doing that less. It's easier said than done.The key for us, I think, is trusting in the strength of our connection. I'm learning that disagreement doesn't necessarily equal disconnection, as much as it can feel like it does. And I'm becoming more comfortable with it being part of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/moving-in-together-relationship-dynamic-change-2024-4">our relationship</a>.I'm more convinced now than ever that I don't need someone who thinks exactly like me. Sharing unity doesn't require conformity. I just want someone who loves, respects, and listens to me as I do him.And that's something we've always done well.

I have intense political debates with my husband. I hate that they make us feel disconnected.

Alex Garland doesn't like being misinterpreted. But the writer-director's latest <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/kirsten-dunst-husband-jesse-plemons-movies-tv-shows-2024-4">film, "Civil War,"</a> isn't about to spoon-feed its message to audiences, either.The film, which Garland first started writing in 2020, is an eerily prescient take on the American political landscape. It follows a group of military-embedded journalists, including the hardened war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and journalist <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wagner-moura-civil-war-military-scenes-pablo-escobar-narcos-2024-4">Joel (Wagner Moura)</a>, as they travel to Washington, DC, during the final days of a civil war in an attempt to interview the dictatorial third-term president before rebel forces descend on the White House.It's garnered attention — and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/civil-war-alex-garland-kirsten-dunst-movie-review">criticism</a> — for Garland's decision not to explain the root of the conflict at the heart of the film or the ideologies of the warring factions.That ambiguity has led some to argue that "Civil War" is devoid of politics, while others <a target="_blank" href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/civil-war-movie-liberals-1235873335/">applauded the film</a> for refusing to turn either side into an easily digestible ideology the audience can root for or against. Others still have <a target="_blank" href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/civil-war-movie-timing-maga-violence-1235831454/">voiced concerns</a> that the film's harrowing sequences of violence, including suicide bombings and people being gunned down by soldiers, could inspire copycats.It's a vortex of online discourse — but Garland would prefer not to step in and clarify everything."Someone could say to me, 'This is an apolitical film.' And I could sit down with them, and I could explain why it's not apolitical," Garland tells BI. "And at the end of it, they'd probably go, 'Okay, yeah, no, I can see it is political.'"Ultimately, correcting people isn't the point. He wants "Civil War" to make the viewer think, question, and, most importantly, feel."I dream of this sort of engaged, interested audience member who does not want everything provided for them in what I feel is a patronizing way," he says.Below, Business Insider spoke with Garland about the irony and danger of having one's words misinterpreted, and what irritates him most about the film industry.There's been plenty of conversation around how to interpret the message of "Civil War," but you've also been a bit misinterpreted lately. I know you already clarified this in another <a target="_blank" href="https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/alex-garland-clarifies-claims-retiring-directing-1234970430/">interview</a>, but I do want to touch on that weird moment recently where you said you were going to step back from directing, and then everybody freaked out, saying you were "retiring."Do you have the quote? <a target="_blank" href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/mar/30/alex-garland-civil-war-interview">I said something like, "Step back for the foreseeable future."</a>All I can say is, is that very ambiguous? Is it either ambiguous in terms of what I mean, or is it contentious? Someone says, "I'm going to stop doing this for a bit" — and then why would anyone care?It's beyond me. Absolutely beyond me.You seemed a little annoyed in the response you gave about the backlash to that comment.Because it's part of a generalized phenomenon of things being grabbed on — the actual meaning of words being ignored in favor of something more reactive and incendiary.The reason that annoys me is not actually because of myself. It's because of what it does to the tone of public discourse. Because the example with me is so small and so insignificant, it leads nowhere. But sometimes, it does lead somewhere.I heard <a target="_blank" href="https://variety.com/2024/film/news/jonathan-glazer-oscar-speech-zone-of-interest-open-letter-1235944880/">Jonathan Glazer's Oscars speech</a> and I did not find it remotely difficult to interpret what it was he was saying. He was making a very considered, actually thoughtful, balanced statement. And then he was treated as if he was encouraging genocide or ignoring genocide when he was doing exactly the opposite. And what I just said would be open to exactly the same kind of misinterpretation.I would just simply say — and this is a rhetorical question: Is it healthy? And the answer is no, it's not healthy. So does it annoy me? I'm not sure if annoy is the right word. I find it dispiriting and problematic, but I have to say the version that happened to me seems super inconsequential.It's also kind of — I don't want to say fitting, but interesting in a way that it's happening when you have this film focusing on journalists.The irony. Not lost on me.The whole film is, in effect, like that. But with the film itself, that's more understandable. I can see there I have been deliberately opaque, so it requires interpretation by the viewer to parse the meaning out, as it were.And so there I'd accept, of course, if you do that, if you are opaque in that way, there are going to be some people who say, "This film is devoid of politics."<div type="image" title="Wagner Moura and Kirsten Dunst in &quot;Civil War&quot;" height="3000" width="4500" msid="109351955" hostid="261" sizebytes="1428084"></div>People have also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/civil-war-movie-timing-maga-violence-1235831454/">voiced</a> concerns it could inspire copycat violence.Sure, which is a really valid question, actually. To really answer it honestly, I would have to be in possession of a whole amount of information that I don't have, and nobody has.So I can't say I know the answer to the question as stated, but I do know something about what sits opposite it. The consequence of creating silence zones is more familiar and more knowable.I feel very distrustful of any position which calls for broad silencing. because then you start to ask complex questions about, how deep is the silence? Where are its edges? What are its parameters? How far does it extend? If you silence this thing, doesn't that also by implication mean you have to silence that thing? And there's a contagion in that which is quite rapid.In general, societies that are big on silencing people, it's not a healthy space to live.There's also controversy over the decision not to explain the root of the civil war in the film or <a target="_blank" href="https://www.chron.com/culture/tv/article/texas-civil-war-a24-movie-18556498.php">how California and Texas ended up on the same side</a>. Was there ever a version of the script that either took place earlier in the conflict or one where you explained the origins more directly?It was always exactly like this. I made a set of assumptions, and I always have a certain kind of audience member in mind, I suppose, that I'm in conversation with.Obviously, it's a sort of slightly dumb thing to do, because everyone is so varied.What does that audience member look like who you're talking to? And do you mean broadly with all of your filmmaking or this film in particular?Broadly, with all of them.I think, to be honest, it's because I came into the film industry at a time when — this is going to make me sound sort of pious, in a way. I don't mean it this way. I think it's more a reflection of the time I came in.I came into the film industry at a time when audiences were straightforwardly described in terms that were pretty rude, pretty pejorative, essentially reductively, as if they were incredibly stupid. And you could not make a film that did not fundamentally bend to that stupidity. Not just me, by the way. This was typically fought against by all sorts of different people, and I was just one of the people who found this irksome.The audience member that I am assuming I'm in communication with I would characterize as being engaged. They're imaginatively engaged in the film. They are thinking, oh, that's a question that's been posed. Why is the question posed like that? Or what are the implications of that question? What could that lead you to think?But it's also an engagement with the world at large. For example, one of the journalists in "Civil War" says, "Oh no, it's like the race to Berlin." Now, if you know what the race to Berlin is, that immediately gives you actually quite a lot of information about what is happening in this film at this point. Because it means there's more than one force heading towards DC, and that DC is finished. It's not whether DC's going to fight back and win.So then when the president has been saying, "We've just won a great victory," you know instantly he hasn't won a great victory. He's actually countered what he just said. He's on the verge of defeat.There'd be one kind of engaged audience that would just know that because they're engaged in history. But there's another kind of engaged audience, who is almost an ideal, who might wonder what that refers to if they didn't know it already and look it up on Wikipedia.<div type="image" title="Cailee Spaeny in &quot;Civil War&quot;" height="4000" width="6000" msid="109351956" hostid="261" sizebytes="1471032"></div>Watching the movie, I felt this sense of removal for the first two-thirds while Kirsten Dunst's Lee was very stoic and also had this sense of detachment from the war happening around her. Then I realized in retrospect that my engagement in the film completely changed when hers did — in that final third where you see her freaking out behind the barricade while they're closing in, I'm freaking out too. Did you want the audience to feel that way, to go through that change?I'm really glad you said that. The film is attempting to function like a reporter, like an old-fashioned reporter, which is not apolitical, it's just unbiased. There's a huge difference between apolitical and unbiased, and it's also trying to function like the internal space of the reporter.To me — and this is going to sound very cute, probably because it is cute — the civil war element was both internally contained by Lee, as well as being the context that she's working in. She's having an internal state of civil war, which then goes into its own state of collapse.Reporters have to hold a kind of distance to stop themselves from screaming or being terrified or running away, but also just in order to report, to just observe and say, "This is the thing that is happening." That is the act of reporting, and that is, in a way, an act of detachment. And then that starts to fail in Lee. And so it starts to fail in the film — fail in a dramatic way.Your actors have spoken in interviews about the filming process, and how being in this very realistic war zone that you created was <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wagner-moura-civil-war-military-scenes-pablo-escobar-narcos-2024-4">almost PTSD-inducing</a>. Were you aware that that was their experience as it was going on, or did you just find out in retrospect?I was aware.How did that make you feel as the person in charge?It's a really good question because it relates to lots and lots of different things. Some of it relates to me as a human being, just as a person communicating, and some of it as someone with a creative goal.Filmmaking and the history of filmmaking does have an amazing relationship with being cavalier with people's safety. Not just their emotional safety, but their physical safety. I'm aware of all that stuff, and the answer is, even if it's an unsatisfactory answer — you make a judgment call. You think, "I think this is OK. I can see it's not easy, but I think it's OK."I have been in situations where you suddenly think, "This is not OK," and then you make that judgment call. So that is the honest answer.Is it possible to make mistakes? Absolutely. I also need to reserve the right to make mistakes in the same way that everybody does, because they're going to make them. It's going to happen.I'd think about it a lot, and there were times when I would change something that was happening around an actor. I would move them further away from something or remove something that was in close proximity. So it's not that the thing just moves forward like a steamroller, which in the old days would happen a lot. In fact, there was a kind of pride taken in it.Like treating your actors almost as sort of little toy dolls that you're manipulating?Not just actors — the crew, everybody. Like there was something inherently noble in the fact that everybody froze to the bones and was right on the verge of hypothermia, and we went six hours over. Like there was a kind of virtue in that.I don't feel there's a virtue in that. But at the same time, I don't think you can make everything safe. And because the film exists in the same world where not everything can be made safe, then the film is subject to that too.This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity."Civil War" is in theaters now.

'Civil War' director Alex Garland won't explain the politics of his movie to you. That's on purpose.

<ul class="summary-list"><li>SCOTUS is hearing arguments that, depending on the outcome, could change how the internet works.</li><li>The laws in question prevent social sites from removing political posts or figures from their platforms.</li></ul>The Supreme Court of the United States has had its hands full this session, hearing important arguments about redistricting and gerrymandering in South Carolina, whether domestic-violence-related restrictions on the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-almost-all-have-domestic-violence-connection-2017-11">ownership of firearms</a> are a violation of the Second Amendment, and deciding that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/scotus-rules-trump-eligibility-campaign-president-colorado-super-tuesday-2024-3">former President Donald Trump</a> is eligible to be on the ballot again this year.But a pair of laws being quietly considered by the highest court in the land could — depending on how SCOTUS rules — change the way the internet works forever, legal experts told Business Insider.<h2>The two laws in question</h2>The laws in question — one out of Texas (<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-decide-states-regulate-social-media-tiktok-facebook-twitter-2023-9">NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton</a>) and another from Florida (<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/regulate-social-media-to-prevent-civil-war-barbara-f-walter-2023-1">Moody v. NetChoice</a>) — are aimed at preventing social sites from removing political posts or figures from their platforms, with the conservative leaders of each state arguing platforms like Facebook and X have unfairly targeted and removed posts made by Republican users.The Florida law, backed by <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-ron-desantis-social-media-censorship-law-deplatforming-blocked-judge-2021-7">GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis</a>, created fines of $250,000 against social companies that barred candidates for statewide office from their platforms and $25,000 for removing candidates for local office. It also created mechanisms for average users to sue social media companies if they believed the companies were unfairly applying their content moderation rules based on political leanings.The Texas law prohibits social companies from moderating users' posts based on viewpoint, with a caveat allowing the platforms to restrict illegal content. It also requires the companies to disclose how they <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-blocks-controversial-texas-social-media-law-2022-6">moderate and promote content</a> on their sites and maintain a complaint-and-appeal system for users.While it's reasonable to question whether social media platforms have uniformly applied their <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-content-moderation-polices-california-law-ab587-2023-12">content moderation policies</a> concerning political viewpoints, as well as debate if there's more that social companies can do to promote constructive discourse online, legal experts told BI the function of these laws does more harm than good.<h2>The stakes of a government win</h2>Two legal experts told BI that a victory for the states in these cases would be a massive blow to the First Amendment because the amendment grants the privilege of free speech to companies and individuals and prevents the government from forcing them to speak — or not speak — in a certain way. Should the laws take effect, the government would be allowed to infringe on the social media companies' right to free speech by compelling platforms to host certain content."If the states win, then I expect that we are going to very quickly have a very different sort of internet experience," Justin (Gus) Hurwitz, academic director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Technology, Innovation &amp; Competition, told BI.Hurwitz said companies will likely do two things immediately: "The first is they will, at least on a temporary basis, stop hosting content, comments, user-generated speech, discussion forums, and things like that."Picture an empty timeline or your <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/social-media-splintering-new-less-toxic-era-meta-bluesky-twitter-2023-10">social media feed</a> filled only with posts from companies paying to advertise on the platform. If these laws are permitted to stand, that's what the social media landscape could look like, at least until the sites update their business practices.And it might not stop at social media companies, Hurtwitz noted, due to the broad language in the laws. Sites all over the internet could be required to host all kinds of unpleasant user-generated content or products on platforms like <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-i-started-etsy-store-and-made-510k-2024-1">Etsy</a>, or <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-rating-passenger-meaning-2019-11">reviews on Uber</a>, so long as the government can prevent the companies from removing the content.The second action social companies would likely take, Hurwitz said, would involve identifying new ways to operate in an environment where the government could compel them to host certain types of speech — which could mean blocking features like forums from being accessed in states like Florida or Texas.<h2>A publisher or common carrier?</h2>Lawyers defending the Florida law have argued to the Supreme Court that the lower courts wrongly ruled that user-generated speech hosted on social media platforms constitutes <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/internet-shutdowns-cost-global-economy-5-billion-2021-report-2022-1">protected speech</a> from the company itself."The Eleventh Circuit erroneously concluded that Florida could not regulate social-media platforms as common carriers, and in doing so, require the platforms to openly accept users," <a target="_blank" href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/florida-to-supreme-court-let-us-regulate-social-networks-as-common-carriers/">Ars Technica</a> reported Florida argued.Florida's argument broaches a broader question raised by the two laws, Hurwitz noted: whether <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/musk-twitter-no-actual-choice-censorship-governmental-request-free-speech-2023-5">social media companies</a> should be treated as publishers, like a newspaper which has editorial discretion, or common carriers like phone companies, which offer connectivity to everyone regardless of what they're saying to the person on the other line.Common carriers must provide service to all customers and host all legal content, while publishers are granted leeway under the First Amendment to pick and choose who they serve and the content they amplify. If large social media companies are determined to be common carriers, each platform's right to curate, amplify, or remove content on their site as they see fit vanishes."And what is social media? You can see how it has characteristics of both," Hurwitz said, "But they're not newspapers. They're not phone companies. They're not shopping malls or telegraphs. They're not radio or broadcast TV or cable television. They're something different. So that's the dichotomy: Are they more like newspapers or common carriers? The answer might just be, no, that they're something different altogether, and there's got to be some other way that the Court tells us we need to think about the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-tech-censorship-law-violates-firms-1a-rights-ruling-2022-5">First Amendment issues</a> in these cases."Jared Carter, a professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School and attorney with the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic, told BI he thinks it's unlikely that the court will need to classify social media companies as a new, third category to both protect the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/the-first-amendment-wont-stop-you-from-getting-fired-over-dumb-social-media-posts-2016-7">First Amendment principles</a> as well as the rights of private companies to do business as they see fit."There is a history of courts struggling with how to apply these doctrines that have existed for a long time to new and emerging technology. And I think there's often a lot of hand-wringing: Does it work? Does it fit perfectly to this new technology?" Carter said. "If you really sit down and think about it, it's not actually all that complicated — you can't force a private individual or a private company to speak to the world in a way it doesn't want to speak based on viewpoint."<h2>What SCOTUS is thinking</h2>The <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-to-determine-if-trump-can-run-president-again-2023-12">Supreme Court</a> heard nearly four hours of arguments on these cases on February 26, with the conservative-majority justices raising concerns about the government compelling social media companies to host certain content and the broad scope of both laws and their potential enforcement mechanisms."The <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/first-amendment-explained-twitter-censorship-hunter-biden-laptop-2022-12">First Amendment</a> restricts what the government can do," <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html">CNN</a> reported Chief Justice John Roberts said. "What the government's doing here is saying, 'you must do this, you must carry these people — you've got to explain if you don't.' That's not the First Amendment."Justice Samuel Alito, however, observed that the companies in question are very different from the technologies around which previous First Amendment cases have been decided. CNN noted he worried about the court resisting "the Orwellian temptation to recategorize offensive conduct in seemingly bland terms."Ultimately, Hurwitz noted, five or six justices appeared poised to declare that the laws violate First Amendment precedents. However, he expects the court's ruling on these cases will raise deeper legal questions than the initial issues at hand."This is probably an epochal case. It's going to raise more questions than it answers and could define the discussions we will have around these topics for the next 10, 20, even 30 years," Hurwiz said. "And it's probably going to do very little to actually answer any of those questions — because they're hard, hard questions. So if you're watching this case, expecting this is going to answer the issue once and for all, prepare to be disappointed in really interesting ways."

SCOTUS is hearing 2 cases about political censorship on social media that could change how the internet works forever

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Texas has experienced a surge in popularity during the pandemic that drove home prices up 30%.</li><li>Meanwhile the political freedom some sought in the state has encouraged others to leave.</li></ul>While some homebuyers seek the American dream in Texas, many are leaving the state to find it elsewhere."Lifelong Texan here. I am definitely preparing an exit strategy," one anonymous user posted on a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/1619lhm/leaving_texas/">Reddit thread about leaving Texas</a>. "From the heat to the stripping away of human rights, I'm just done."Another poster struck a similar chord. "I've been in Texas most of my life, and my husband and I were always planning on retiring here (in about 5 years from now)," they wrote. "But between this intense heat, crazy politics, and cost of living, we've decided to leave for good and head to Knoxville."While people have been moving into the Lone Star state to take advantage of its <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-single-mother-became-a-first-time-home-buyer-2023-7">relatively affordable real-estate market</a>, political atmosphere, and <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-workers-moved-to-austin-regrets-2023-8">work opportunities</a>, some of those same qualities are driving others out. Over <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/top-states-americans-are-moving-to-florida-texas-california-2023-10">494,000 people left Texas</a> between 2021 and 2022 (though the state gained a net population of 174,261.) It's a trend that could intensify as housing costs surge and the state's political landscape becomes more <a target="_blank" href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-is-among-most-politically-polarized-states-15315223.php">polarized</a>.<h2>Housing costs have some looking for affordability elsewhere</h2>Texas experienced a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-housing-market-texas-homes-affordability-midwest-north-carolina-2023-10">surge in popularity</a> during the pandemic that pushed home prices up 30% since 2019, according to data from Realtor.com. At the same, residents are also grappling with property taxes that are among the highest in the country.Californians seeking more affordable homes made the Golden-to-Lone-Star-state moving route the most popular in the country between 2021 and 2022, with almost 108,000 people making the move. But there's a one big downside. "The <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/californians-moved-texas-property-tax-gave-sticker-shock-2023-11">property tax percentage rate is higher</a>," Marie Bailey, a Texas-based realtor who moved from El Segundo, California, to Prosper, Texas, in 2017, previously told Business Insider. "Every time a prospective client calls me, it's one of the first things I talk about."<div type="image" title="Marie Bailey stands with her family in front of her home in Prosper, Texas." height="658" width="930" msid="105515464" hostid="261" sizebytes="80002"></div>As Texas starts to <a target="_blank" href="https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/2023/10/16/dallas-fort-worth-homes-now-less-affordable-than-chicago-nearing-new-york-costliness/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20homes%20in%20the,upward%20through%20the%20housing%20boom.">lose its edge</a> as an inexpensive and affordable housing choice, many locals are shifting their focus to the Midwest.For Texans, "the Midwest has emerged as popular recently because it is just by and large the most affordable region," Hannah Jones, Realtor.com's economic research analyst, told Business Insider in October. "We're seeing this trend of buyers looking for affordability really explode."<h2>The political freedom many moved to the state for is driving others away</h2>For many Americans, politics are just as important as housing affordability when choosing a place to live.According to a 2022 survey by mortgage marketplace LendingTree involving 1,545 participants, 39% of respondents said they've relocated or <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/moving-politics-survey/#:~:text=cross%20state%20lines.-,Among%20those%20who%20say%20they'd%20move%20due%20to%20political,country%20due%20to%20national%20politics.">might consider moving</a> to a different state if their political views didn't align with the majority.Jackie Burse, a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/left-california-for-texas-afford-life-single-woman-political-beliefs-2023-9">self-identified Conservative</a>, is <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/california-moving-to-texas-migration-cheaper-affordability-cost-of-living-2023-8">one of the many Californians</a> who have sought out Texas for its political environment. Burse told Business Insider in September that it played a crucial role in her decision to relocate to Texas in 2021.<div type="image" title="Jackie Burse grabbing a drink." height="1737" width="2316" msid="105515467" hostid="261" sizebytes="473484"></div>In Texas there is "room for people to believe what they want without being shamed," Burse said, unlike in California.Contrary to Burse, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.rmpbs.org/blogs/news/transgender-families-leaving-texas-for-colorado/">Bob McCranie, a Dallas-based real-estate broker</a> who created a real-estate service that helps LGBTQ+ people in Texas sell their homes and get connected with agents in different parts of the country and abroad, told KXAN News in July that the state's lack of inclusivity has created an unwelcoming environment."What we all want as human beings is to feel a level of safety, and if your state is making you feel unsafe, there's no reason to stay," McCranie said. "I can't believe somebody could look at, let's say, California or New York versus Texas and Florida and say that LGBTQ people feel more welcome in Florida and Texas."<h2>Texas hasn't lived up to its promises for some</h2>Some recent transplants have also grown disenchanted with the state.In Austin, some tech workers who flocked to the city during the pandemic just <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-workers-moved-to-austin-regrets-2023-8">can't seem to get out fast enough</a>.Nick Thomas, 30, moved to Austin from downtown Los Angeles in January 2021 and told Business Insider in August he hoped to move back to California soon. He called Austin is a "watered-down" version of places he's previously lived like Los Angeles and San Francisco."People say it's a tech scene just because that's what they were told, but when you get to it, there's no evidence for it," Thomas said. "I think it was just oversold."<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/moved-houston-regretted-it-went-back-portland-2023-11">Jules Rogers</a>, a reporter who relocated from Portland, Oregon, to Houston in 2018 for a position at a local newspaper, left Texas less than two years after moving to the city.<div type="image" title="a couple stands in front of a bull at a rodeo" height="1280" width="960" msid="105515468" hostid="261" sizebytes="103572"></div>Though she was earning a 20% higher income and living in a more spacious apartment, she said that her quality of life hadn't improved."I tried to tell myself I just needed to give it a chance, settle in, and get used to Houston, but I missed the trees, the air, the mountains, the ocean, the vibes, and the culture of the Pacific Northwest," Rogers previously wrote on Business Insider.She has since returned to Portland where she said she feels "much happier now back at home."Are you a Texan who has recently left or has plans to leave the state? We want to hear from you. Email reporter Alcynna Lloyd at <a target="_blank" href="mailto:alloyd@businessinsider.com">alloyd@businessinsider.com</a> to share your story.

People are leaving Texas over rising costs, partisan politics, and a sense of disenchantment

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The <keyword id="6354862" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="trump" source="Orion">Trump</keyword> campaign mistakenly booked a <keyword id="12443164" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="landscaping" source="Orion">landscaping</keyword> business for a 2020 <keyword id="12027483" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="press-conference" source="Orion">press conference</keyword>.</li><li>While <keyword id="11931698" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="rudy-giuliani" source="Orion">Rudy Giuliani</keyword> spoke at the briefing, a reporter told him the election was called for Biden.</li></ul>In a hilarious <keyword id="11938298" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="halloween" source="Orion">Halloween</keyword> tribute, <keyword id="11970521" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="four-seasons" source="Orion">Four Seasons</keyword> Total Landscaping said <a href="https://twitter.com/therealfstl1992/status/1454962694013038595">in a tweet</a> that it would be celebrating the holiday as the Four Seasons Hotel, a reference to the Trump campaign mistakenly booking the commercial landscaping and snow removal business instead of the luxury hotel chain for a press conference last November."This year our costume was an obvious one," <a href="https://twitter.com/therealfstl1992/status/1454962694013038595">the business' tweet said</a>.The conference at Four Seasons Total Landscaping set the stage for Trump's "Big Lie." In the middle of the conference, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-rudy-giuliani-react-to-joe-biden-election-win-video-2020-11">a reporter informed Rudy Giuliani</a>, Trump's personal lawyer who was speaking at the event, that "all" the major cable <keyword id="11893589" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="news" source="Orion">news</keyword> networks had called the race for Joe Biden.He responded by announcing the campaign's plans to challenge the election in court the following week and made unsubstantiated claims of election fraud.Since then, the landscaping business has used the press coverage to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/four-seasons-total-landscaping-joins-the-philadelphia-tourist-trail-2020-12">promote its business</a>, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/four-seasons-total-landscaping-shares-rudy-giuliani-meme-after-raid-2021-4">make Giuliani memes</a>, and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/four-seasons-total-landscaping-joins-the-philadelphia-tourist-trail-2020-12">sell millions of dollars in merchandise</a>.

For Halloween, Four Seasons Total Landscaping poked fun at being mistakenly booked by the Trump administration for a press conference

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="10249221" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="four-seasons-total-landscaping">Four Seasons Total Landscaping</keyword> took a dig at <keyword id="324847" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Rudy-Giuliani">Rudy Giuliani</keyword> after feds <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-new-york-apartment-raided-by-feds-nyt-says-2021-4">raided his apartment</a> and seized his electronic devices.</li><li>The suburban Philadelphia landscaping company served as the site of Rudy Giuliani's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/confusion-as-trump-team-host-press-event-at-obscure-landscaping-center-2020-11">post-election press conference</a> in November.</li></ul><keyword id="265606" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Four-Seasons">Four Seasons</keyword> Total Landscaping, the suburban Philadelphia landscaping company that served as the site of Rudy Giuliani's <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/confusion-as-trump-team-host-press-event-at-obscure-landscaping-center-2020-11">election-denial press conference</a> on November 8, took a dig at the former NYC mayor after the FBI <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-new-york-apartment-raided-by-feds-nyt-says-2021-4">raided his apartment, office, and his associate's office</a>.The meme features photoshopped FBI agents pacing the same parking lot where Giuliani gave his press conference and repeated election conspiracy theories. Trump campaign had booked the location for a press conference instead of the luxury Four Seasons hotel in the city."Wrong apartment. We kicked him out months ago," the caption said.Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/giuliani-trump-doj-federal-raid-mayor-lawyer-2021-4">Trumpworld shuns Rudy: The inside story of Giuliani's descent from 'America's Mayor' to presidential lawyer and now an FBI target</a>During that conference, reporters informed Giuliani<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-rudy-giuliani-react-to-joe-biden-election-win-video-2020-11"> that Biden had won the presidential election, and all of the major networks had called the race.</a>Giuliani, threw his arms up and said: "All of them! Oh my goodness! Wow, all the networks! We have to forget about the law, judges don't count!"In a reply to their meme on Wednesday, Four Seasons Total Landscaping hinted that they were making a documentary about the whole experience from their side.

You Searched For "political landscape" and got 8 results

'The million-dollar question of this election': Women's health startups are confronting a shifting legal landscape

Melia Russell,Rebecca Torrence

Most chatbots inherently 'left-leaning,' but have capacity to 'learn' bias, study finds

PTI

I have intense political debates with my husband. I hate that they make us feel disconnected.

Katie Matthews

'Civil War' director Alex Garland won't explain the politics of his movie to you. That's on purpose.

Caralynn Matassa

SCOTUS is hearing 2 cases about political censorship on social media that could change how the internet works forever

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

People are leaving Texas over rising costs, partisan politics, and a sense of disenchantment

Alcynna Lloyd

For Halloween, Four Seasons Total Landscaping poked fun at being mistakenly booked by the Trump administration for a press conference

Morgan Keith

Four Seasons Total Landscaping shared meme taking a dig at Rudy Giuliani after feds raid his NYC apartment

Azmi Haroun

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides