Author: admin

• The Paramount-WBD deal is on pause ahead of a pivotal trial.
• Even if Paramount wins, CEO David Ellison’s dream of forming a Hollywood superpower will be delayed for months.
• But Paramount’s financial backers appear well-prepared financially to weather a delay.

Paramount Skydance’s agreement to delay its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery might have a simple explanation: CEO David Ellison can afford to wait.

After months of trying to fast-track its WBD mega-deal, Paramount agreed on Friday not to close it until June 2027, or until five days after a trial ends.

Attorneys general from 12 states have sued Paramount to block its acquisition of WBD, arguing the merger is anticompetitive. A judge had paused the deal, which had already been approved by the US Department of Justice and global regulators like the European Commission.

Although Paramount was eager to avoid a delay, its sudden reversal signals it’s confident that a jury would take its side in a trial — and that the cost of waiting to merge with WBD is overstated.

Not too ticked off

Paramount’s decision to willingly delay its WBD merger may first appear to be an own-goal, given the financial penalties it would incur by waiting.

Ellison’s company agreed to pay WBD shareholders a “ticking fee” of about $7 million each day the deal doesn’t close, starting after September 30. Paramount lawyer Jeffrey Kessler told the judge overseeing the case that the company “would suffer very severe harm” if it had to pay the ticking fee, which amounts to $650 million per quarter.

If the deal is delayed six months, Paramount would owe WBD shareholders $1.3 billion. The most it could owe is $1.95 billion in ticking fees since the pause agreement lasts until June 1.

However, the ultrawealthy Ellisons and their financial partners have agreed to pay $110 billion for WBD, which makes a $7 million per day charge more of an annoyance than a roadblock.

A $1.3 billion charge for a six-month delay would increase Paramount’s purchase price by 1.2%, which, when annualized to 2.4%, is less than June’s inflation rate of 3.5%. The same is true of a 2% price bump over nine months.

“It’s a lot of money in absolute dollars, but it’s not a huge deal,” said Hernan Lopez of media consultancy firm Owl & Co.

Some investors thought Paramount would pay over $33 per share for WBD, Lopez said. That explains why WBD shares fell after Paramount won the bidding war by offering $31 per share. Those savings may have given it more breathing room to offer WBD shareholders a ticking fee.

Paramount seemed prepared for turbulence in the regulatory process, as the company already accounted for the ticking fee in the tens of billions in cash it set aside for this deal. However, Ellison may find himself waiting longer to reunite with WBD than he hoped.

“They must have priced in some delay, though likely not three full quarters,” Lopez said. Paramount declined to comment.

‘Every single dollar matters’ — as does every day

Still, just because the Ellisons could afford to pay a few billion extra doesn’t mean they want to, especially since they’d be on the hook for a $7 billion charge if they drop their bid for WBD.

“I think every single dollar matters, even with Ellison’s virtually endless resources,” said analyst Brandon Katz of entertainment data firm Greenlight Analytics.

Although Paramount has deep-pocketed owners, Katz noted that “there’s a lot of ancillary money involved outside the purchase price” — including a $2.8 billion breakup fee to Netflix, which had previously agreed to buy WBD’s studio and streaming business.

Paramount’s biggest frustration may be the opportunity cost of not closing the WBD deal sooner.

Ellison’s dream of building a Hollywood superpower may be disrupted if his company has to wait months before merging HBO Max with Paramount+ and the Warner Bros. Studio with its studio.

In the meantime, Paramount is planning to boost its streamer by adding micro dramas, bolstering its free tier, and introducing interactive features, Business Insider reported last week.

Still, Ellison likely knows that sleek new streaming features and AI enhancements on their own may not turn Paramount into Netflix.

Instead, the media mogul believes paying $110 billion for WBD is worth it — and worth the wait.

• Business Insider asked an etiquette coach what things passengers should avoid doing on airplanes.
• She said reclining your seat is OK as long as you’re being mindful of the person sitting behind you.
• Avoid bringing smelly foods on board and giving parents dirty looks when their kids are crying.

From holding up the bathroom line with your skincare routine to playing music without headphones, there are numerous etiquette mistakes people make when flying on airplanes.

That’s why Business Insider asked etiquette coach Mariah Grumet about the things passengers should avoid doing while on a flight.

Here’s what she had to say.

Reclining your seat without regard for others

When it comes to plane etiquette, reclining your seat is a hot topic.

Grumet told BI that even though some may find it rude, she thinks passengers should be able to recline since they paid for their seats.

However, she said passengers should still be mindful of the person sitting behind them when deciding when to recline. For example, Grumet advises against reclining if the person behind you is eating or has things on their tray.

Being rude to parents

Young children may act out if they’re hungry or exhausted from a long day. Even if the crying is annoying and disruptive, Grumet said it’s important to be respectful to the parent.

“It’s likely that the parent is already super embarrassed as is, and you don’t want to add fuel to the fire by whispering or giving dirty looks,” she said.

This also applies to children who are a bit older. Grumet added that even if they’re running down the aisle or doing something you think can be controlled, it’s still important to be kind.

Stinking up the plane with food or grooming products

When you’re on a plane, it’s really important to be mindful of anything with a strong scent.

For example, if a passenger brings a tuna sandwich onto the plane, the smell can be disturbing to those around them.

Grooming can come with extra smells, too. Items like nail polish or perfume could be distracting or irritating to fellow passengers, so Grumet recommends leaving those at home.

Rushing to the front at the end of the flight

“The most polite way to deboard a plane is to let the people in the front go first,” Grumet told BI.

However, she pointed out that many passengers try to rush to the front as quickly as possible.

Even if you had a difficult flight, Grumet said you should allow those ahead of you to go first. The exception to this is if you’re running to make a connecting flight.

In that case, she advised notifying an airline staff member to help you get off the plane as quickly as possible.

This story was originally published on August 22, 2024 and most recently updated on July 27, 2026.

• JetBlue Airways announced a basic fare for its coming first class, but it won’t extend to Mint.
• The strategy is similar to United and Delta’s cheaper business class tickets.
• Some industry analysts say basic fares might not make travel cheaper long-term.

The airline “basic premium” trend is spreading.

JetBlue Airways announced on Monday that it is unbundling its coming first-class cabin with a new fare dubbed “BlueFirst Base” that strips perks like seat selection in exchange for a lower price.

The new fare will roll out “in the coming days” as JetBlue prepares to launch its new “BlueFirst” experience later this year on all of its planes that don’t have Mint business class.

That means long routes currently flying in an all-economy setup, like New York to Seattle and Boston to Portland, will get a first-class section — bringing JetBlue’s cabin lineup closer to that of its largest US competitors.

The strategy mirrors moves from United Airlines and Delta Air Lines, which both recently announced similar discounted premium fare structures as airlines look to capture growing demand for premium travel.

It’s unclear how much cheaper the BlueFirst Base option will be, but fares will likely fall between JetBlue’s premium-economy offering, “EvenMore,” and Mint — its highest-end cabin with lie-flat beds on select long-haul international and transcontinental routes.

Looking at JetBlue flights for Boston to Los Angeles in August, an economy ticket is between about $300 and $500. EvenMore with extra legroom is about $900, and Mint is about $1,700.

JetBlue’s new Base fare strategy will also extend to EvenMore and regular coach, the latter of which is being renamed from “Core” to “Main.” JetBlue said Base won’t apply to Mint.

This differs from United and Delta’s international “basic business class” fares, which strip perks like lounge access, seat selection, baggage allowances, and flexibility. JetBlue did not say why Mint is excluded from Base.

Beyond Base, JetBlue said each of its four seat options will also include a “Standard” and a “Flex” fare, both of which include seat selection, but the latter offers refunds for eligible cancellations instead of a travel credit.

JetBlue’s president, Marty St. George, said the goal of the new fare structure is for customers to “be able to book what’s right for them” — essentially giving them more choice and flexibility.

In its first-quarter earnings, JetBlue said premium cabins are outperforming economy seats, with revenue growth about nine percentage points higher year over year.

Some industry analysts, however, warn that basic first and business fares could eventually erode the traditional premium cabin without making travel cheaper in the long run.

Henry Harteveldt, president of Atmosphere Research Group, previously told Business Insider that airlines may keep lower-tier premium fares near current levels while steadily raising prices for fully flexible tickets.

Though he said corporate travelers who value the seat and rest benefits of business class over extra perks could welcome the cheaper options.

• Sam Altman says we’re in the singularity, a point at which AI surpasses human capabilities and improves itself.
• Not everyone is convinced, despite how quickly AI is improving.
• “Rapid progress is not itself the singularity,” Roman Yampolskiy, a computer science professor, told BI.

Sam Altman said the singularity is here. Not everyone agrees.

The singularity is often used to describe a point at which AI improves itself so quickly that humans can no longer reliably understand, predict, or control what comes next.

“I’ve been waiting for this my whole life, and I think it’s going to be incredible, hugely positive, awesome for the world,” Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, said of the singularity in an episode of the “Relentless” podcast that aired Saturday.

Last week, Elon Musk said in an X post that the singularity has arrived, while Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis said in May that humanity was standing at the “foothills of the singularity.”

However, the public response from tech’s biggest leaders has notably been silent following Altman’s comment. Most of those who spoke to Business Insider said they didn’t think the bar had been met.

Here’s what smart people are saying about Altman’s claim.

Stuart Russell, UC Berkeley professor and author of ‘Human Compatible’

Stuart Russell, who also co-authored “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach,” said we have not reached the singularity and said he doesn’t think Altman believes we have either.

“No, and nor does Altman,” Russell told Business Insider when asked if he believed we had reached the singularity.

He pointed to Altman’s comments last month that AI systems could be doing a “significant fraction” of OpenAI’s research by March 2028, a timeline Russell said suggests the singularity isn’t here yet.

Russell also challenged Altman’s January 2025 claim that OpenAI knew how to build AGI “as we have traditionally understood it.”

“That was not true then and it’s still not true,” Russell said.

“If we do reach the Singularity before we have a cast-iron solution to the problem of loss of control, then we will almost certainly lose control,” he added.

Roman Yampolskiy, author of ‘Artificial Superintelligence’

Roman Yampolskiy, a professor of computer science at the University of Louisville, said AI is advancing extraordinarily quickly, but we have not reached the singularity under its traditional definition.

“Rapid progress is not itself the singularity,” Yampolskiy told Business Insider.

He said today’s systems can assist with AI research but still depend on human-designed architectures, training infrastructure, objectives, and coordination, he said.

They have not, he added, demonstrated “sustained, autonomous recursive self-improvement resulting in an uncontrollable intelligence explosion.”

Nick Bostrom, author of ‘Superintelligence’

Nick Bostrom, a philosopher who founded the now-closed Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, said it may be impossible to know exactly when humanity crosses into the singularity.

He compared the moment to falling into a black hole.

“At some point they glide over the hole’s event horizon, which means they are henceforth forever separated from the rest of the universe,” Bostrom told Business Insider. “Yet from their perspective, everything still seems the same as before.”

Bostrom said AI is showing the “first stirrings” of recursive self-improvement, with systems beginning to contribute meaningfully to AI research. He said a key missing capability is continual learning.

“Using current AIs is like working with a brilliant and extremely well-educated recruit, but it’s always their first day at the job,” he said.

James Barrat, author of ‘The Intelligence Explosion”

James Barrat, an author and filmmaker who has long warned about the risks of advanced AI, agreed with Altman that humanity has entered the singularity.

Barrat said the singularity is a speculative hypothesis rather than an established scientific prediction.

But, using the late science-fiction author Vernor Vinge’s definition — a point at which technological growth transforms civilization in ways people cannot predict or control — “that’s exactly where we are,” he told Business Insider.

Barrat pointed to OpenAI’s recent disclosure that its autonomous AI agent left its test environment and accessed Hugging Face systems while trying to complete a cybersecurity challenge.

AI-safety researchers have long warned that systems could execute novel, multistep plans without human oversight, he said. “Now it has happened. AI slipped from our control. Score one for the singularity.”

Ajay Agrawal, University of Toronto professor

Ajay Agrawal, who is also a faculty affiliate at the Vector Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Toronto, said we have not reached the singularity.

“AI systems are extraordinarily powerful prediction machines, but they do not want anything,” Agrawal told Business Insider. “People have goals; neural networks do not.”

AI can appear purposeful because people set objectives for it to optimize against, he said, but that purpose “originates with us.”

He added it was more accurate to view AI as “remarkably powerful tools serving human goals” than autonomous entities with goals of their own — even as the risk of “catastrophic failure due to increasingly powerful zombie algorithms” grows.

• “The Odyssey” is on track to gross at least $1 billion worldwide.
• It stars plenty of famous actors, but the real draw is its director, Christopher Nolan.
• A new generation of movie fans cares more about who’s behind the camera, rather than in front of it.

If you’ve spent any time online lately — or, frankly, if you’ve been a person living in the world — you’ve probably heard some version of: “There’s a new Christopher Nolan movie out that’s supposed to be nuts. We should go see that.”

Despite a cast that includes Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, Zendaya, Lupita Nyong’o, and Robert Pattinson, that’s how “The Odyssey” is being marketed: the latest film from Christopher Nolan.

As superhero franchises lose some of their box-office dominance and Hollywood worries about the next generation of movie stars, a different kind of star has emerged: the director.

Christopher Nolan gets butts in seats more than almost any movie star

There’s perhaps no other living director on Nolan’s level right now. He hasn’t directed a film that’s made less than $550 million since 2006, if you disregard “Tenet,” which came out during the COVID-19 pandemic and still made a respectable $366 million.

“The Odyssey” has made $639 million since its July 17 release (though some of those IMAX tickets had already been sold a year in advance), and scalpers are selling tickets for $600 — figures that are unprecedented for an R-rated, non-superhero film.

Nolan, recently ranked by Vulture as Hollywood’s most powerful director, is a franchise unto himself. His films promise spectacle: breathtaking action, meticulous visuals, a beautiful score, booming sound, and big ideas. And while his casts are stacked, their stars are not always reliable box-office draws.

Consider Matthew McConaughey: “Interstellar,” released at the peak of the “McConaissance,” made $774 million, but McConaughey has not come close to achieving that level of box-office success since.

Similarly, Matt Damon, the lead of “The Odyssey,” last led a mega-successful blockbuster over a decade ago with “The Martian.” He’s worked at a high clip since then, but nothing has reached the highs of “The Odyssey” or his last collaboration with Nolan, “Oppenheimer.”

In fact, let’s talk about “Oppenheimer” — or, we should say, “Barbenheimer.“

‘Barbenheimer’ was a phenomenon, driven by 2 director-forward blockbusters

In July 2023, Greta Gerwig’s “Barbie” opened the same day as Nolan’s “Oppenheimer,” creating the “Barbenheimer” phenomenon.

Gerwig’s three solo directorial efforts (“Lady Bird,” “Little Women,” and “Barbie”) each grossed more than the last, culminating in “Barbie” grossing $1.4 billion.

As much as “Barbie” was led by its star, Margot Robbie, the film was also marketed as a Gerwig film. And similar to Damon and McConaughey, Robbie hadn’t been a reliable box-office draw preceding “Barbie.” Her two prior films, “Babylon” and “Amsterdam,” were deemed catastrophic flops.

“Oppenheimer,” a three-hour, R-rated epic about the man who created the atomic bomb, grossed an equally impressive $975 million.

Instead of starring a proven A-lister, it was led by Cillian Murphy, best known for his smaller roles in Nolan’s films and the TV series “Peaky Blinders.” Instead, it was mainly sold on Nolan’s penchant for spectacle.

Both films would be nominated for best picture at the 2024 Academy Awards, with “Oppenheimer” winning.

They join directors like Ryan Coogler, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Jordan Peele, who are passionate about the theatrical experience

Remember this promotional video Coogler shared before the release of “Sinners”?

Arguably, nothing did more to add to the hype of “Sinners” than Coogler’s impassioned case for seeing the film in IMAX. (In fact, his name has become so closely associated with shooting on film that Marvel’s announcement that his “Black Panther 3” will be filmed on large-format celluloid — a first for the studio — was met with huge cheers rather than blank stares.)

Commenters said the clip inspired them to buy premium-format tickets, and the film went on to gross $370 million, an impressive feat for an original, R-rated horror movie set in 1930s Mississippi.

Similarly, Paul Thomas Anderson emphasized his VistaVision format while promoting “One Battle After Another,” which became his highest-grossing film at $231 million. It also earned him his first best director Academy Award and won best picture.

We could go on — like how Gerwig persuaded Netflix to put her next film, a “Chronicles of Narnia” reboot, in theaters for an unprecedented 48 days, or how Jordan Peele got “Nope” to gross $171 million, or how 21-year-old Kane Parsons’ vision for “Backrooms” led to the film making $387 million — but you get the picture.

Audiences have responded — and studios should take note

In 12 days, “The Odyssey” made $286 million domestically, more than double the worldwide total made by “Supergirl” and surpassing the full domestic run of “Thunderbolts.”

The superhero movie isn’t over, but they can no longer be assumed to dominate end-of-year box office lists.

Plus, apps such as Letterboxd and film podcasts, including “Blank Check” and “The Big Picture,” have helped make directors, auteur filmmaking, and originality a bigger part of mainstream movie culture.

Studios can no longer put familiar intellectual property on the big screen and expect audiences to eat it up. The success of Nolan, Gerwig, Coogler, Peele, and others suggests they need to invest in filmmakers and their visions, and market what sets them apart from their peers.

The movie star isn’t dead — he’s just not an actor anymore.

• I booked a three-day small-group tour of Scotland’s Isle of Skye with my 17-year-old daughter.
• Initially, I worried she would feel out of place among older travelers.
• Instead, she easily connected with our group, often navigating unfamiliar situations

When I started planning a trip to Scotland with my 17-year-old daughter, I knew we wanted to spend some time in Edinburgh and then visit the Isle of Skye.

The logistics of the trip were a little overwhelming — as the only adult, I would be responsible for all the driving. And even more stressful was the thought of having to drive on the “wrong” side of the road, which I’ve never done before.

The natural choice was to visit Edinburgh on our own, then book a group tour for the Isle of Skye. The tour we decided to join has received great reviews for its small-group experiences, but would my daughter feel out of place among what I thought would be a group of retirees? I wasn’t so sure.

Our group was surprisingly diverse

Turns out, I had nothing to worry about. At age 50, I was probably the oldest member of our group after our tour guide. Joining us on this three-day tour were a couple on their extended honeymoon, a brother-sister pair who met up every year in a new destination, and a couple leaving their toddler at home with the grandparents for the first time.

The group was small enough that we quickly learned a little about one another. We shared meals, traded travel stories, and got to know each other as we drove through the Scottish Highlands. There was no pressure for my daughter to make friends, but she naturally became part of the group.

What really surprised me was how well my daughter did, chatting easily with other tour group members over shared meals, even though she was the youngest person by decades.

I thought I would be the one looking out for her

I had expected to be the one looking out for her during the trip. Instead, she often surprised me by looking out for me.

On one hike, the terrain was slippery and uneven. While I was carefully watching my footing, my daughter was the one helping me navigate the trail. She was more confident than I was in some situations and seemed to take genuine pleasure in being able to help. It was wonderful to see her in this new way.

It’s easy for me to assume the role I’ve always had as her mother: the person who handles the logistics, solves problems, carries the snacks, and makes sure everyone gets where they need to go. Even as my kids get older, I can fall back into those familiar habits.

But on this trip, our roles were often reversed. She chatted easily with our tour guide and helped me figure out where we were going when I got turned around on the busy streets of Edinburgh.

Of course, she still needed me, but traveling together in Scotland gave me a glimpse of the adult she is becoming.

I realized I might be more ready for her to leave than I thought

As she heads off to college soon, I know she will have to navigate new places, unfamiliar people, and unexpected challenges without me by her side. As a parent, it can be difficult to imagine that transition. But our trip to Scotland made me feel a little more prepared for it.

I’m savoring my days with her and feeling a little better about her going out into the world. I may not be ready to stop being her mom, but after seeing how grown-up she has become, I feel more confident that she is ready to take some steps without me.