Author: admin

• Booking a room at the front of the ship was my biggest regret on my first cruise.
• On Royal Caribbean’s Wonder of the Seas, I learned that rooms at the front are bumpier than others.
• I booked the front room of deck eight and felt seasick for most of my voyage.

The first night of my first cruise was terrifying. The floor trembled beneath me. I was startled by booming noises coming from the decks above and below mine. Was that furniture falling, sliding, and crashing into walls?

I sat stiffly on the couch at midnight, determined to stay awake and prepared for disaster. I read the emergency instructions over and over for what felt like hours until I accidentally fell asleep.

When I woke up, I rushed out the door to ensure everything was all right. As seemingly unfazed cruisers filled the buffet and lined up for the water slides, I realized I’d experienced a normal night at sea.

This was back in April 2022, when I booked a room on one of the largest cruise ships in the world, Royal Caribbean’s 18-deck Wonder of the Seas.

For $2,000, I spent seven nights in a 179-square-foot ocean-view stateroom at the very front of deck eight. It was a mid-tier room — a step above the windowless interior staterooms, a step below staterooms with a balcony, and two steps below a suite.

I unknowingly booked a room where movement on the ship felt the strongest

After my first rocky night aboard the ship, I wondered whether everyone had the same experience. So, I talked to some fellow passengers who were seasoned cruisers. They told me that the front of the ship is one of the worst places to be if you’re prone to seasickness. They said that higher decks in the middle of the ship feel calmer and more stable.

Since my room on the 18-deck ship was situated at the front of the eighth floor, I felt constant motion in my room. As someone who gets motion sickness from the slightest movement of bathwater, this spoiled many aspects of my first cruise. 

Some nights were rockier than others. On the roughest nights, I heard and felt a similar sensation to thunder beneath me every few minutes. Loud thumps and heavy vibrations in my room sounded like large pieces of furniture colliding.

During the days at sea, it was especially challenging for me to eat and participate in activities. And I didn’t feel rested for my excursions at port stops, which included hikes in the sun.

Some cabins can be rockier than others, like those situated at the front of the cruise ship

Cruise passengers prone to motion sickness should book a room in the middle of the ship to feel the least amount of rocking.

I wish I’d researched how the location of a cabin can affect the amount of motion you feel while the ship is moving before booking my cruise. Next time, I’d choose a room in the middle of the ship.

• A family scapegoat takes on the blame for larger family issues.
• This person often becomes the black sheep of the family, who doesn’t fit in with family norms. 
• A therapist shared signs you might be the scapegoat of your family.

On the surface, a family scapegoat often looks as if they’re the problem child.

They might be the college dropout in a legacy of Ivy Leaguers or the introverted gamer in a family of outgoing athletes. Sometimes, they’re just the foil to their golden-child sibling; more aloof or less financially successful.

These are the black sheep that some parents seek therapy to “fix.” However, the issue usually lies in the family dynamic itself, not the individual child, Annie Wright, a licensed marriage and family therapist in California, told Business Insider.

“There’s a family systems issue, but they’re pointing to one person as the scapegoat,” Wright said. Behind the scenes, one spouse could be having an affair, the parents could be having explosive fights, and the marriage could be breaking down. By being assigned blame for the entire family’s dysfunction, family scapegoats become “the person who holds the unconscious collective burden of the family.”

Wright shared some signs you might be the scapegoat of your family, even if you do your best to fit in.

1. You clash with your family’s norms

Scapegoats don’t always feel like they’re underachieving in the family. Some might feel the opposite: in a family that enforces more rigid gender roles, Wright said, you might be the black sheep if you’re the first woman to go to college or work as a CEO.

The point is that scapegoats don’t fit in. They’re usually “the person who acts antithetical to the norms of the family,” she said. Simply doing things differently can get you branded as a family outsider.

2. You seesaw between rebellion and people-pleasing

Not everyone responds the same way to being the family scapegoat. Some might even cycle through different stages, Wright said.

“At the far end of the spectrum, they really embrace that identity,” she said, noting that some people lean into the black sheep label and continually try to rebel against their family.

On the other end, “people can fight tooth and nail to fit in after the very painful experience of being rejected by a family system,” she said.

And between those two extremes, many people teeter between both, going through periods of withdrawal or fawning for approval.

3. You struggle with trusting others

Family dynamics can shape all other relationships, from romantic partnerships to friendships, Wright said.

Family scapegoats may experience social challenges such as “feeling like they can trust others, feeling like it’s safe to be themselves, feeling like they can assert themselves and have that be OK,” Wright said.

They might hold back in relationships, fearing yet another rejection.

4. You seek out people who criticize you

It’s common to be drawn to what feels familiar, so family scapegoats might unconsciously seek out relationships where they still feel like the ones taking all the blame.

“If at some level you had a family system that othered you, you might be drawn to partners or friends who are critical of the way you are,” Wright said. This is doubly so if their parents were vocally and frequently critical of them.

As painful as it can be to find yourself a family scapegoat, Wright said it’s the beginning of a new path. You can alter the dynamics in your relationships, including those within your family, once you start to realize that you deserve better.

• A former Google engineer left Silicon Valley to join a London startup accelerator program.
• He moved after feeling limited at Google and wanting to build his own startup.
• He says giving up a stable job and a US visa was worth the risk, even in a difficult job market.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Gregor Konzett, a 27-year-old former Google employee based in London. It’s been edited for length and clarity.

When I got relocated to work out of Google’s Mountain View headquarters in 2024, it was a dream come true.

I was raised in a small village in Austria, but I always dreamed of living in Silicon Valley. As a child who was excited about tech, I wanted to be where innovation happened.

My team was based in California, but I was working from London. Not even a year into my job, I was asking if I could be transferred.

Two years after getting hired as a software engineer, Google transferred me to Silicon Valley. Then, a year after that, I quit. I packed up my bags and moved back to London in just two weeks to participate in a startup accelerator program. It was worth the risk, even in this difficult job market.

Living in Silicon Valley was incredible

I joined Google in 2022 as a software engineer on the Google Pixel audio team. I enjoyed my job, but being in London, the physical distance turned minor questions into major delays. If I hit a blocker with a specific subsystem, I’d send a message and wait 24 hours for a reply due to time zone differences, or spend many late nights in chats with colleagues to unblock myself.

After I was finally relocated to the Mountain View headquarters, living in the Bay Area was almost exactly as I had always imagined it from movies and TV. California is the most beautiful place I’ve ever been to, and being able to call it my home was incredible.

It was great to be part of an environment filled with so many other engineers. I remember going surfing with some people and just having the most Silicon Valley conversation ever about coding and deep tech. The only thing I didn’t expect was that it’s not this crazy, futuristic place. In reality, the infrastructure was just OK, and the internet speed wasn’t even very reliable.

I went from hitting a stride to hitting a plateau in California

The work life at the Google headquarters was really nice. On average, it was a typical 9-to-5, and my team had a really great dynamic.

For the first few months, I was learning a lot, and everything ramped up quickly. My team gave me a lot of responsibility and trusted me to handle huge pieces of the system, which is amazing and rare for a company of its size.

Being in the office, I got to sit on the same floor as the teams building the specific subsystems I was coding for, and sit in meetings where product decisions were actually made. I could walk 10 feet, point at a whiteboard, and solve complex architectural issues in minutes. I learned more in those first three months at Google than I had in the last two years.

However, after about a year, I felt like I had reached a natural ceiling in my work, and I wasn’t learning much anymore. I wasn’t super happy in my job, and my visa limited me from working on my own projects outside of Google, which was my real dream.

I questioned if it was the right time to leave a stable job

One of my closest friends got into a startup accelerator program in London and encouraged me to apply, with the plan of using it as an opportunity to cofound our own startup. When I got accepted with a start date only a month away, I knew I’d have to make a quick decision. I loved California, and leaving Google would mean leaving the country.

The job market has been terrible, and I questioned whether this was the right time to quit my job and potentially face unemployment. However, I felt confident in my technical background and having Google on my résumé, so I believed I could find another job.

The hardest part about deciding to quit was that it was objectively a really good job, and leaving meant giving up my path to a green card in the US. I was stuck in a dilemma: do I stay in a role I’ve outgrown for four, or potentially even more years, just to secure permanent residency, or do I quit to chase higher job satisfaction?

I realized that staying for the sake of immigration meant stalling my career development.

I figured now was the time to take a risk. I’m young and have a financial runway from my Google salary, and I don’t have a mortgage to pay or a family to care for. So, I put in my two weeks at Google.

Eventually, I will return to California to keep building

It’s been a few months since I joined the program, and my friend and I are working on our startup, Vestry.ai, which fixes the observability gap for complex hardware. Our plan is to build while we’re in the accelerator, get funding, and move back to California to live the startup life.

California is ultimately the place to be for anything in the startup world. We want to be a part of the AI revolution, and that’s just where you’ve got to be.

I’ve been so busy with the program I haven’t really had any time to think about whether I made the right choice, but I’m convinced I’m where I need to be.

Do you have a story to share about quitting Big Tech? If so, please reach out to the reporter at tmartinelli@businessinsider.com.

• Ukraine’s naval drones are now targeting Russia in waters other than the open ocean.
• It recently unveiled drones designed for use on rivers, including the Barracuda drone.
• The unit that operates the Barracuda said it was able to destroy a Russian base and boat.

The naval drones that Ukraine has used to hammer Russia’s Black Sea Fleet are now targeting Russia in new waterways.

The 40th Coastal Defense Brigade of Ukraine’s 30th Marine Corps said last week that an uncrewed “Barrauda” drone was able to penetrate Russian positions, leave mines, and strike Russian targets, damaging a Russian logistical base and a boat equipped with a machine gun.

The strike comes as Ukraine fields more naval drones designed to hunt Russian targets in smaller bodies of water.

The brigade shared combat footage that appears to have been filmed by a camera on the drone. The uncrewed vessel can be seen navigating a wide body of water before moving into a much narrower, brown-water channel.

The newly released video shows a camouflaged boat at a base, and then aerial footage shows a large explosion followed by images of a destroyed building along the water.

The footage indicates the attack did not take place on the open ocean, as many of Ukraine’s naval drone strikes have, but in a confined inland waterway; Ukrainian outlet Militarnyi reported that the strike occurred on the Dnipro River.

Ukraine has used drones across land, air, and sea to gather information on the enemy and strike Russian targets, and its naval drones have helped to weaken Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukraine doesn’t have a proper navy with powerful ships, but the much cheaper drones have helped damage Russia’s expensive warships, even forcing Russia to relocate many vessels further away.

However, using drones in river environments or smaller bodies of water is a relatively new development for Ukraine, opening up a new range of targets for newly developed technology.

Dedicated drones for those areas, such as the Barracuda or others like the Ursula or Black Widow 2, are newer technology compared to systems like the Sea Baby or Magura drones for open ocean. Ukraine is constantly upgrading its naval drones and creating new ones.

The Barracuda drone was first showcased by the 40th Separate Coastal Defence Brigade in September.

The 40th Separate Coastal Defence Brigade showcased the Barracuda in September, saying the drone is designed to “perform tasks that humans cannot,” including evacuating people from coastal areas and delivering ammunition to dangerous areas.

It said a month earlier that the drone is modular, making it easy to swap in different types of weapons, from mines to grenade launchers. It also shared that it uses artificial intelligence, though details on that are limited.

A special unit with the same name designed and launched the Barracuda and is the only one in the Ukrainian military operating the drone right now.

In recent months, Ukraine has said the Barracuda has destroyed a Russian logistics vessel and its crew and used naval mines to block channels between islands.

Drones are being used more in this war than in any other conflict in history, with Ukraine heavily relying on them as it faces regular shortages of weapons, ammo, and manpower.

Drones give Ukraine a key advantage because they can be produced domestically and at a fraction of the cost of many traditional weapons, creating an asymmetric threat to expensive assets such as Black Sea Fleet warships or T-90 tanks on the battlefield. Ukraine’s defense minister said last week that the armed forces expect to receive nearly 3 million FPV drones by the end of the year, most of them made at home — though Russia is also rapidly developing and fielding similar technology.

Worried about the potential for a future conflict with Russia, much of the West is closely watching Ukraine’s tactics and new war tech. Naval drones are one of the innovations Ukraine has said it is willing to export to partner nations.

NATO allies and defense companies are working on the technology, particularly in the Baltic Sea, which is shared by a host of NATO members and Russia. The US military is also exploring the potential of these weapon systems.

US Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s supreme allied commander in Europe, called the way that Ukraine was able to move Russia’s navy with drones an “arbiter of things in the future.” He said that “there seems to be a big role for unmanned maritime systems into the future.”

• Chip Wilson founded Lululemon Athletica Inc. in 1997 after selling his first apparel  company.
• During his tenure, Wilson became known for his controversial remarks and mishandling of company scandals.
• Since leaving, Wilson has been vocal about his negative views of Lululemon’s leadership and recently launched a proxy fight.

Lululemon‘s billionaire founder, Chip Wilson, has been the center of both acclaim and controversy.

The 70-year-old entrepreneur was at the forefront of the movement that turned women’s activewear into everyday apparel. The booming athleisure market is estimated to reach $623 billion by 2030, according to a November 2025 report. And Lululemon is a big part of that market. Popular items, like the brand’s leggings, develop cult followings and become status symbols among certain demographics, like Gen Z.

But Wilson has also been a poster child for corporate controversy. Over the years, his comments about women’s bodies, child labor, and the Asian community sparked outrage and eventually led to his ouster.

After being heavily involved with the brand for over 15 years, Wilson resigned from the board of directors in 2015. Despite his exit, he’s been vocal about the company’s performance in recent years, frequently calling it out for underperforming compared to newer competitors. In December, he launched a proxy fight by nominating three new independent board members.

Today, Wilson is worth about $7.8 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index and is often among the top 10 wealthiest Canadians. He spends part of his fortune on philanthropy and researching a cure for the rare muscular disease called facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, which he was diagnosed with at 32 years old.

Here’s everything we know about Wilson’s life and career as the founder and former CEO of Lululemon.

Dennis “Chip” Wilson was born in California and raised in Canada.

Wilson lived in California up until the age of five when his family moved to Calgary. He relocated to Edmonton for university in 1973 before moving back to the US for work two years later, according to his website.

He worked on an oil pipeline and as an economist before venturing into entrepreneurship.

He lived in Alaska and worked on an oil pipeline in 1975. During this time, Wilson said he read the top 100 books of all time.

“By the age of 19, I might have been the wealthiest, most traveled and best-read boy in the world,” Wilson wrote on his website.

He went on to become an economist after receiving his degree in economics from the University of Calgary in 1979.

He attributes his first entrepreneurial success to a mistake.

His entrepreneurial streak began in 1979 with Westbeach Surf Company. He started making shorts inspired by those he saw on a trip to California in 1979, Wilson writes in his book, “The Story of Lululemon.”

“The mistake that led to my success was an inability to sell my long, baggy, wild-patterned shorts to wholesalers. Consequently, I was forced to open my own store,” he writes on his website.

He opened his own stores and owned the manufacturing — a move that he said tripled profits, he writes

Over the years, his company evolved to serve different types of athletic lifestyles, like skateboarding and snowboarding. In 1997, Wilson sold Westbeach.

He was diagnosed with FSHD2 in 1987 at the age of 32.

Wilson led an active lifestyle growing up. He played football, wrestled in university, and completed an Ironman triathlon in 1983, according to his website.

Four years later, he was diagnosed with the rare, slow atrophying muscular dystrophy. As a result Wilson said he dedicates “considerable time and money into discovering a cure.”

Ten years later, he founded the athleisure brand Lululemon.

The first Lululemon store opened in 2000 in Vancouver, Forbes reported. Wilson is often credited with creating and normalizing athleisure for everyday wear rather than just for workouts.

Wilson once said he named the company Lululemon because he believed Japanese people can’t pronounce the letter L.

“It’s funny to watch them try and say it,” Wilson told Canada’s The Tyee in 2005.

He has also said that brand names with the letter L in them are considered more authentic to Japanese consumers.

His now-wife, Summer Wilson, started as the founding lead designer for the brand, according to her website.

He married Summer Wilson in 2002 and has five sons.

Wilson and Summer wed in 2002, according to his site. He had two sons from a previous marriage, and he and Summer eventually welcomed three more.

The couple live in Vancouver where Wilson has permanently lived since 1986, per his website.

Wilson stepped down from his position as CEO of Lululemon in 2007 when the company went public.

After taking the company public, Wilson took the role of chief innovation and branding officer. His CEO successor was former Starbucks executive Christine Day. The pair clashed often.

He served as the company’s chief innovation and branding officer for about 4 years before he was forced to resign.

In January 2012, Lululemon announced that Wilson would step down from his role as chief innovation and branding officer. His vision for the brand’s direction was a source of friction between him and former CEO Day.

Following his resignation, Wilson began a sabbatical in Australia for over a year before Lululemon called him back to help handle a crisis, according to a 2015 press release.

Wilson has made some outrageous remarks about women, child labor, and more over the years.

Women, children, and minorities have been the subject of Wilson’s most offensive takes over the years. Most of which he’s had to later clarify or apologize for.

The lululemon founder once blamed birth control for higher divorce rates since “Men did not know how to relate to the new female.” Wilson has also spoken in favor of children working in factories to earn money and avoid poverty.

“The single easiest way to spread wealth around the world is to have poor countries pull themselves out of poverty,” Wilson told The Tyee.

His comments about women’s bodies preceded Wilson’s official departure from Lululemon.

Customers began complaining about their pants pilling in 2013 months after Lululemon had to recall 17% of its pants for being too sheer.

Wilson — the chairman of the board at that time — responded to the criticism during an interview with Bloomberg TV by saying their own bodies might be to blame rather than Lululemon.

“Frankly some women’s bodies just don’t actually work for it,” Wilson told Bloomberg. “They don’t work for some women’s bodies…it’s really about the rubbing through the thighs, how much pressure is there over a period of time, how much they use it.”

He eventually apologized for his remarks in a YouTube video posted to Lululemon’s Facebook page after his comments caused public outrage.

Wilson stepped down as chairman of the board in 2013.

Amid tension with Day and a year of scandals for Lululemon, Wilson stepped down from his role as chairman of the board in 2013.

In his book, titled “Little Black Stretchy Pants,” Wilson said he made Day cry during a 2013 meeting when he called her a terrible CEO and questioned her vision for Lululemon. Wilson wrote that he suspected her reaction was fake, and Day announced her resignation one day later.

On his website, Wilson said he had his own reason for leaving the company.

“I lost control of the culture and product development,” Wilson wrote. “At odds with a board of directors who did not want to invest in the future, I departed in 2013.”

In 2014, Wilson sold half of his stake in Lululemon.

In the deal, Wilson sold half of his shares in the company to investment firm Advent International for $845 million, Inc. reported. Today, Wilson owns an 8% stake in Lululemon, according to Bloomberg.

Wilson owns about 1% of Anta Sports, which is known as the Nike of China.

In 2019, Wilson invested $100 million in the Chinese activewear company for a 0.6% stake, Forbes reported. Anta owns a majority stake in Amer Sports, a conglomerate of brands which includes Arc’teryx and Wilson Sports. Wilson said in an interview that he owns a 20% stake in Amer.

Wilson has a $7.8 billion net worth.

Wilson’s 8% stake in Lululemon makes up a major portion of his wealth, per Bloomberg. Lululemon reported revenue of $10.6 billion in the last fiscal year, which ended in February 2025.

He owns the most expensive home in Vancouver.

His waterfront mansion was valued at $74 million in 2023 and has seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms, according to CBC. The property, which was constructed in 2008, has a pool and tennis court.

In 2011, Wilson and his wife launched a real estate company.

Low Tide Properties invests in, develops, and operates commercial and residential buildings in Vancouver, with a focus on building lab and hospital spaces. It also owns multi-family properties in Seattle.

Wilson told Real Estate Magazine that started the company with a goal to invest 65% of his family’s wealth into real estate in three cities by 2030.

The couple also started a design school.

In 2018, the Wilsons established the Wilson School of Design at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Richmond, British Columbia. They donated $12 million towards the program and a $36 million new facility on the school’s campus.

Wilson has charitable organizations for education and land conservation.

He has allocated some of his wealth towards his charities Imagine1Day, which funds schooling for children in Ethiopia, and Wilson 5 Foundation which supports land conservation and public art installations in British Columbia.

He allocated $100 million into his venture to cure FSHD.

Wilson’s rare muscular disease affects an estimated 900,000 people globally. Wilson has an even less common form known as FSHD2, which affects just 5% of those with the disease, Business Insider reported.

In 2022, Wilson created his philanthropic venture Solve FSHD and pledged $100 million into finding a cure for FSHD.

Wilson has unusual views on aging and has tried anti-aging treatments.

On his website, Wilson wrote, “I have a great fascination for the subject of longevity as I see aging as a disease.”

In his quest to cure FSHD, he has experimented with longevity and wellness treatments popular among wealthy entrepreneurs trying to prevent aging. Some of his methods include hormone therapy, electroacupuncture, and daily doses of the immunosuppressive drug rapamycin, according to Bloomberg.

Since stepping down, he’s been critical of Lululemon’s business strategies.

Wilson told Forbes in an interview published in January 2024 that he doesn’t agree with the “whole diversity and inclusion thing” that Lululemon has embraced.

“They’re trying to become like the Gap, everything to everybody. And I think the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody,” Wilson said.

“You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in,” he added.

Wilson has had some choice words for Lululemon’s leadership over the years as the brand loses ground to brands like Alo Yoga and Vuori. In October 2025, he compared the mistakes that the brand has made to a plane crash. He also doesn’t appear to be a fan of CEO Calvin McDonald, who is set to exit the company in 2026.

He blamed the brand’s “loss of cool” on McDonald and his team for losing its innovative edge, The Wall Street Journal reported.

In December 2025, he launched a proxy fight in an effort to shake up Lululemon’s board

Although Wilson hasn’t held a management position at Lululemon in over a decade, he’s still voicing his strong opinions on how the company should be run. After Lululemon named CFO Meghan Frank and chief commercial officer André Maestrini as co-interim CEOs earlier in December, Wilson said the CEO succession plan was a “total failure of board oversight.”

“Shareholders have no faith that this board can select and support the next CEO without input from a board with stronger product experience,” Wilson said in a public statement.

On December 29, he confirmed that he has nominated three inependent director candidates to the company’s board, effectively launching a proxy fight at the athleisure brand. His nominations include former On Running co-CEO Marc Maurer, former ESPN chief marketing officer Laura Gentile, and former Activision CEO Eric Hirshberg.

“They can play an essential role in refocusing on the inspirational customer, revitalizing its bold vision, attracting the best people and maximizing value for all shareholders,” Wilson said.

• Lou Gerstner, who led IBM’s turnaround in the 1990s, has died, the company told staff.
• He kept IBM intact and refocused it on customers during a period of crisis.
• Gerstner reshaped IBM’s strategy and culture after years of decline.

Lou Gerstner, the former CEO of IBM who led the company through one of the most consequential turnarounds in corporate history, died on Saturday at the age of 83, the company said.

Gerstner ran IBM from 1993 to 2002, arriving at a time when the company was under severe pressure, and its future was in doubt. IBM was losing money, the tech industry was shifting rapidly, and there was widespread expectation that the company would be broken up.

Instead, Gerstner chose to keep IBM together. He pushed the company to organize around customer needs rather than internal divisions, helping reposition IBM as a provider of integrated technology and services for large enterprises. That decision became central to IBM’s recovery and renewed relevance.

Gerstner also drove cultural change inside the company. He emphasized direct decision-making, accountability, and execution, while insisting that innovation mattered only if it translated into real value for clients. The approach marked a sharp break from IBM’s inward-looking habits that had taken hold before his arrival, IBM said in its announcement of Gerstner’s death.

His tenure included painful restructuring. IBM abandoned long-standing traditions, including its decades-long “cradle to grave” no-layoff policy, as it sought to stabilize its finances and compete more aggressively. Many credit those moves, along with Gerstner’s strategic focus, with saving the company from collapse.

Before joining IBM, Gerstner built a high-profile career in corporate America. He was a partner at McKinsey & Company, later served as president of American Express, and was CEO of RJR Nabisco. After leaving IBM, he chaired the Carlyle Group and focused on philanthropy, particularly in education and biomedical research.

A native of Long Island, New York, Gerstner earned a degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from Harvard. IBM said it plans to hold a celebration of his legacy in the new year.