You might think of Walmart as Americas quintessential big box storethe place you can get everything from Hanes T-shirts to large screen TVs to cleats for your kid’s soccer uniform.
But Walmart isn’t defying shaky consumer confidence because of the breadth of its offerings, which impressively stretches to 120,000 products at most stores. Customers aren’t flocking into stores to buy made-in-America T-shirts, as I wrote about in May, thanks to a novel partnership with American Giant. Or because it is adding more high-end products (at lower prices than you’d find anywhere else), as I covered in October in this profile of its chief merchant Latriece Watkins.
Nor is this about breakthrough new products exclusive to Walmart such as Glen Powell’s Smash Kitchen line of condiments, which hit $10 million in revenue in just six months. (I wrote about how Powell and his cofounders pulled off that feat, revealing their growth numbers for the first time, and how products like theirs fit within Walmart’s overall strategy.)
You’re getting warmer, though.
If you want to understand why Walmart is beating the odds, this where you should look: the grocery aisles. Walmart has gone from a general merchandise store that also sells groceries to America’s grocery store that also happens to sell everything else you could imagine.
The Arkansas-based retailer, which generated $648.1 billion in revenue last year (60% of which came from food), accounts for more than a fifth of all grocery dollars in the country.
Since 2019, Walmart has been in the top position when it comes to grocery market share, with Kroger coming in at a distant second at less than 10%.
Walmart’s grocery business has been key to its financial success at a time when many other retailers are struggling. Last week, Walmart posted strong quarterly results, with U.S. sales increasing by 4.5%. It has seen an increase in spending per visit, and gains among families with household incomes higher than $100,000 and $200,000. As a result, Walmart has raised its sales and profit guidance, suggesting that it expects to have a stellar holiday shopping season. In contrast, Target posted a drop in sales, and lowered its full-year profit guidance.
Grocery store as Trojan horse
Walmart’s grocery business has been a Trojan horse. Customers come to the store to stock up their fridge and pantry on low-priced food items, then pick up socks and video games while they’re at it. From the time of Walmart’s founding in 1962, the company’s strategy has been to leverage its enormous buying power to compel brands to sell their products at very low prices.
“For most suppliers, Walmart is their biggest customer,” Rachel Slade, author of Making it in America, told me earlier this year. “It’s almost impossible for them to say no to Walmart’s terms.”
Walmart’s prices are generally between 10% and 25% lower than competitors. As a result, it has put many smaller retailers and mom-and-moms shops out of business. This, in turn, increases it market share. Today, its 4,605 stores are within 10 miles of 90% of the population.
But over the past five years, as the economy has gotten more volatile and inflation has spiked, Walmart’s low grocery prices have begun to appeal to higher income Americans, who feel the need to tighten their belts. The company is doing this in several clever ways.
Last year, it launched Bettergoods, its first new in-house food brand in two decades, that is is perfectly calibrated to the tastes of the higher-income consumer. It has all the markers of a premium brand, with sleek, vibrant branding, but it is also designed to appeal to food preferences of wealthier consumers, including from organic milk to plant-based mozzarella to single origin coffee.
Sucharita Kodali, a retail analyst at Forrester, says that she’s been impressed with the quality of food in her local Walmart’s grocery section in New Jersey. Products are neatly organized and fresh produce is high quality and inviting. “The quality is just as good as Whole Foods,” says Kodali.
This has come in stark contrast to Target, where groceries make up 23% of the products in store. Over the few years, consumers have complained about Target’s grocery and bakery sections being out of stock, messy shelves, and misplaced inventory. Kodali says she’s seen expired food on Target shelves, which is “the worst thing you can do as a retailer.”
E-comm as an entry
The challenge for Walmart is that many of its higher-income consumers aren’t used to visiting Walmart’s stores, and might be bashful about shopping at what is perceived as a budget retailer. But for more than a decade, Walmart has been beefing up its e-commerce capabilities.
When it comes to groceries, it is now significantly ahead of its biggest competitors, capturing 31.6% of grocery e-commerce sales in 2025, ahead of Amazon (22.6%) and Kroger (8.6%). Customers can order groceries online and get them as fast as two hours. And Walmart has a subscription program called Walmart+ that offers free deliver with no order minimum, and is designed to compete directly with Amazon Prime.
But just as with low-income consumers, Walmart wants to encourage these higher income shoppers to buy more than food. As I reported in the latest issue of the magazine, Walmart’s chief merchant, Latriece Watkins, has been on a mission to bring in more premium brands into the store, like Sonos speakers, DeLonghi coffee makers, and LaRoche-Posay skincare. The strategy appears to be working. The latest financial report shows that the average amount consumers are spending per transaction has gone up by 2% from a year ago.
Can Walmart keep this growth streak up? That’s an open question. During the Great Recession of 2008, affluent consumers flocked to Walmart in an effort to stretch their dollars. But when financial pressures eased, the Walmart acknowledges that many of these newfound customers eventually went back to competitors. This time, however, Walmart appears to have a longer-term strategy to keep wealthier consumers coming back, from creating products that cater to their tastes to keeping them locked in with the Walmart+ subscription program. We’ll have to see if these shoppers stick around when the economy gets better.
A copy of the first Superman issue, unearthed by three brothers cleaning out their late mother’s attic, netted $9.12 million this month at a Texas auction house which says it is the most expensive comic book ever sold.The brothers discovered the comic book in a cardboard box beneath layers of brittle newspapers, dust and cobwebs in their deceased mother’s San Francisco home last year, alongside a handful of other rare comics that she and her sibling had collected on the cusp of World War II.She had told her children she had a valuable comic book collection hidden away, but they had never seen it until they put her house up for sale and decided to comb through her belongings for heirlooms, said Lon Allen, vice president of comics at Heritage Auctions. The brothers uncovered the box of comics and sent a message to the auction company, leading Allen to fly out to San Francisco earlier this year to inspect their copy of “Superman No. 1” and show it to other experts for appraisal.“It was just in an attic, sitting in a box, could have easily been thrown away, could’ve easily been destroyed in a thousand different ways,” Allen said. “A lot of people got excited because it’s just every factor in collecting that you could possibly want all rolled into one.”The “Superman No. 1” comic, released in 1939 by Detective Comics Inc., is one of a small number of copies known to be in existence and is in excellent condition. The Man of Steel was the first superhero to enter pop culture, helping boost the copy’s value among collectors, alongside its improbable backstory, Allen said.The previous record for the world’s most expensive comic book had been set last year, when an “Action Comics No. 1” which first introduced Superman to the world as part of an anthology sold for $6 million. In 2022, another Superman No. 1 sold for $5.3 million.A small, in-house advertisement in the comic book helped experts identify it as originating from the first edition of 500,000 Superman No. 1 copies ever printed. Allen estimates there are fewer than 500 in existence today.The copy was not given any special protection, but the cool Northern California climate helped preserve it, leaving it with a firm spine, vibrant colors and crisp corners, according to a statement from Dallas-based Heritage Auctions. The copy was rated a 9.0 out of 10 by comics grading company CGC, meaning it had only the slightest signs of wear and aging.The three brothers, in their 50s and 60s, did not wish to be identified due to the windfall involved nor did the buyer of the comic book, according to the auction house.“This isn’t simply a story about old paper and ink,” one brother said in a statement released by the auction house. “This was never just about a collectible. This is a testament to memory, family and the unexpected ways the past finds its way back to us.”
Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.
Jack Brook, Associated Press/Report for America
Apple said on Monday it is cutting jobs across its sales teams to strengthen its customer engagement efforts, noting that only a small number of roles will be impacted by the layoffs.
An Apple spokesperson told Reuters that the company is continuing to hire and the affected employees can apply for new roles.
The impacted employees include account managers serving major businesses, schools and government agencies, according to Bloomberg News, which had reported the news earlier in the day.
Staff who operate Apple’s briefing centers for institutional meetings and product demonstrations for prospective customers were also affected, Bloomberg said.
One of the major targets of the layoffs was a government sales team working with agencies, including the U.S. Defense Department and Justice Department, per the report.
The team had already been facing tough conditions after the 43-day government shutdown and cutbacks imposed by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, Bloomberg added.
In the past few weeks, companies including Verizon, Synopsys and IBM have announced job cuts.
Juby Babu and Stephen Nellis, Reuters
Only a week after experiencing a dreaded death cross, and subsequently seeing its value fall to less than $81,000, Bitcoin is showing some signs of recovering.
On Monday, BTC’s price topped $89,000, and as of early Tuesday, are hovering around $87,500.
To be clear, the slump is far from overthe coin saw its price top $124,000 just last monthand no one can predict what will happen next, but it’s a clear upswing in momentum.
All told, when Bitcoin bottomed out at $81,000, it had fallen around 35% off its high. There were several reasons for the selloff, including outflows from large institutional investors and broader economic uncertainty, among other things.
It was a wipeout of around $1 trillion in market value.
Sentiment may be on the upswing
As for this week, its anyone’s guess how much momentum the cryptocurrency will have, but investors appear to be felling a little better.
The Crypto Fear and Greed Index from CoinMarketCap, a sentiment indicator for the crypto market, was at 15 on Tuesday.
Thats still in the extreme fear portion of the spectrum, but it’s up from low pint of 10, where the index was on November 21.
For context, the index hit a high point for 2025 back in May, tallying a 76 and putting it in the greed spectrum. At the time, BTC was trading for around $111,000.
So there has been a wild swing in both momentum and sentiment within the past six months.
And though Bitcoin has regained its footing a bit over the past week, the question is whether that momentum can be sustained and if values can start pushing back toward all-time highs.
What’s next for crypto?
Perhaps the next catalyzing moment for the crypto market will come after the Federal Reserve’s December meeting next month.
The Fed will meet on December 9 and decide whether to cut interest rates further or hold steadya decision that has been made more difficult by a lack of economic data (such as jobs reports) in recent months due to the government shutdown.
The Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, have been trying to balance concerns about persistent inflation and a weakening labor marketand doing so without data has it flying blind.
Despite that, the odds of a rate cut appear to be the rise, and another cut could spur investors to put more money in stocks and the crypto markets.
This story is developing…
European and Asian shares mostly gained on Tuesday after U.S. stocks rallied on hopes the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates soon.The futures for the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average slipped 0.1%.Germany’s DAX edged 0.1% lower to 23,216.76 and the CAC 40 in Paris added 0.1% to 7,965.77. Britain’s FTSE 100 likewise gained 0.1%, to 9,542.55.In Asian trading, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 picked up 0.1% to 48,659.52 as a plunge in technology giant SoftBank’s shares weighed on the market. It fell 10.3% on concerns that returns from its heavy investments in OpenAI may be threatened by the next generation Gemini artificial intelligence model that Google launched last week.In South Korea, the Kospi gained 0.3% to 3,857.78. Taiwan’s Taiex jumped 1.5%.Chinese markets also advanced. In Hong Kong, the Hang Seng climbed 0.7% to 25,894.55, while the Shanghai Composite index jumped 0.9% to 3,870.02.E-commerce giant Alibaba, which was due to report its earnings late Tuesday, gained 2.1% in Hong Kong.Australia’s S&P/ASX rebounded to edge 0.1% higher, closing at 8,537.00.U.S. markets will be closed on Thursday for the Thanksgiving holiday. A day later, it’s on to the rush of Black Friday and Cyber Monday.The U.S. stock market rallied on Monday, at the start of a week with shortened trading because of the Thanksgiving holiday.The S&P 500 climbed 1.5% in one of its best days since the summer. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.4%, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 2.7%.Stocks got a lift from rising hopes that the Fed will cut its main interest rate again at its next meeting in December, a move that could boost the economy and investment prices.The market also benefited from strength for stocks caught up in the artificial-intelligence frenzy. Alphabet, which has been getting praise for its Gemini AI model, rallied 6.3% and was one of the strongest forces lifting the S&P 500. Nvidia rose 2.1%.Monday’s gains followed sharp swings in recent weeks, not just day to day but also hour to hour, caused by uncertainty about what the Fed will do with interest rates and whether too much money is pouring into AI and creating a bubble. All the worries are creating the biggest test for investors since an April sell-off, when President Donald Trump shocked the world with his “Liberation Day” tariffs.Despite all the recent fear, the S&P 500 remains within 2.7% of its record set last month.Several tests for the market lie ahead this week. One of the biggest will arrive Tuesday when the U.S. government will deliver data on inflation at the wholesale level in September.Economists expect it to show a 2.6% rise in prices from a year earlier, the same as in August. A higher-than-expected reading could deter the Fed from cutting its main interest rate in December for a third time this year, because lower rates can worsen inflation. Some Fed officials have already argued against a December cut in part because inflation has stubbornly remained above their 2% target.Traders are nevertheless betting on a nearly 85% probability that the Fed will cut rates next month, up from 71% on Friday and from less than a coin flip’s chance seen a week ago, according to data from CME Group.In other dealings early Tuesday, U.S. benchmark crude oil lost 47 cents to $58.37 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, shed 49 cents to $62.23 per barrel.The dollar fell to 156.30 Japanese yen from 156.91 yen. The euro rose to $1.1534 from $1.1521.Bitcoin rose 1.6% to $86,836. It was near $125,000 last month.
Elaine Kurtenbach, AP Business Writer
Shares in Alphabet Inc (Nasdaq: GOOG), the company better known as Google, are rising again in premarket trading today.
The stock is currently up by more than 4% following yesterday’s rise of 6.2%. If those gains hold, Google could be set to become the worlds next company with a $4 trillion market cap today.
Heres what you need to know.
Why are GOOG shares rising?
Shares in Alphabet have had a stellar run as of late.
Yesterday, they rose more than 6.2%. Over the past five days, they have been up more than 11.5%. Over the past month, they have jumped more than 22%. And over the past six months, they have been up more than 87%.
And thats before todays further 4% gain in premarket trading.
So why is Alphabet’s share price jumping recently, particularly over the past week?
Theres one big reason: artificial intelligence. But the companys boost from AI is the result of two different factors.
The first: Last week, Google released Gemini 3, its proprietary AI chatbot and LLM. Industry watchers and consumers have widely praised the model for its speed, performance, and capabilities, which, in many tests, have outperformed OpenAIs ChatGPT-5.
Gemini 3s capabilities and Googles decision to quickly integrate it into Search helped spur the stock higher last week.
But that isnt the only AI boost Google that has gotten recently.
On Monday, the Information reported that Facebook owner Meta is considering using Googles AI chips in its data centers in 2027a deal that could be worth billions to Google.
Googles AI chips are the companys tensor processing units (TPUs). Googles TPUs have been around for nearly eight years now, but, as CNBC noted, the company has recently begun designing them to handle AI tasks with efficiency in mind.
Meta is one of the largest buyers of components that go into AI infrastructure, and Nvidia is the leading provider in supplying AI chips.
If Meta is considering opting for Googles TPUs over Nvidias AI chips, it suggests the company has confidence that Googles chips are more than suitable for powering its data centers.
If thats the case, Google could be set to become a serious competitor to Nvidia in the AI hardware race. Indeed, Google investors seem to be celebrating that this morning.
Fast Company reached out to Google and Meta for comment.
Google could become the next $4 trillion company
As of yesterdays market close, Alphabet had a market cap of roughly $3.84 trillion, making it the third-most valuable company after Nvidia and Apple, both of which are currently valued at more than $4 trillion.
But already in premarket trading this morning, GOOG shares have risen by more than 4%.
The companys share price needs to rise by just under 5% over yesterdays close to reach a market cap of $4 trillion. If it does that, Google would become just the fourth company to ever reach that milestone, following Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple. (Microsofts valuation has currently sunk back below $4 trillion).
Given that Googles stock price is already up around 4% in premarket this morning, it’s possible, but not guaranteed, that the search giant could cross the $4 trillion market cap before markets close today.
Google is the best-performing Magnificent 7 stock of the year so far
Google hasnt had just a great run as of late. When you look back at the companys stock price performance since 2025 began and compare it to the other companies in the Magnificent 7, Google is far and away the best-performing stock in the group so far this year.
As of yesterdays closing price of $318.47 per share, GOOG shares were up over 87% since the year began. Heres how that compares to the other Magnificent 7 stocks:
Alphabet Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG): up 87.79% year to date (YTD)
NVIDIA Corporation (Nasdaq: NVDA): up 35.94% YTD
Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT): up 12.46% YTD
Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL): up 10.18% YTD
Meta Platforms, Inc. (Nasdaq: META): up 4.70% YTD
Tesla, Inc. (Nasdaq: TSLA): up 3.45% YTD
Amazon.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN): up 3.14% YTD
Investors will be keenly watching where Googles stock price goes from here. Its impossible to predict which direction that will be, but as of this writing, GOOG is so far the clear winner as far as stock price gains go among the Magnificent 7 in 2025.
After entrepreneur Brynn Putnam sold her smart fitness company, Mirror, to Lululemon for $500 million in 2020, she was looking for her next big idea. It was the middle of the pandemic, and Putnam was living with five kids ranging in age from 2 to 21. She says she often found herself dreaming of an activity that would get her whole family to sit down and connect with each other.
Brynn Putnam [Photo: Board]
When we played games, we were either playing board games like Candyland, so that the littlest ones could participate, or we would try to play video games, but the teenagers who’ve logged a lot of hours on sort of modern controllers would always smoke us, Putnam says. There was a missing product: one that could give you the tactile feel of physical pieces and the face-to-face interaction of sitting around a shared experience, but with the interactivity of video games.
Enter Board, Putnams newest venture. Board is a 24-inch game console that looks a bit like a gigantic iPad. Its function, though, is unlike pretty much any other device on the market: Board combines the setup and feel of a traditional board game with the digital screen of a video game, allowing players to use physical pieces on top of an interactive screen.
[Image: Board]
The console comes with 12 exclusive games and can accommodate up to 10 players in a team setting. It debuted on October 28 for a holiday price of $499, though its standard cost is $699. While the Board team wouldn’t share sales data, they did note that the product already surpassed initial forecasts.
To make Boards premise work, Putnams team designed its own custom hardware and software that can identify different kinds of touch, withstand rough play and spills, and react in real time to players movements. For Putnam, Board represents an entirely new way to use tech; rather than isolating its users, Board is built to provide a social experience.
[Photo: Board]
How Board built a brand-new kind of game
Creating Board started with one major hurdle, says Ryan Measel, the companys chief technology officer: Most touchscreens are only built to recognize 10 fingersand theyre certainly not designed to recognize objects. Board needed to identify not only an unlimited number of fingers, but also the consoles 49 unique game pieces.
Measel explains that, with commercial platforms like Android and iOS, theres a programming layer that limits how many touch pointslike taps and swipesa developer can build into an application. With Board, Measels team built a custom driver that gave them full access to the consoles sensor array, opening up essentially endless possibilities for different interactions with the screen.
[Photo: Board]
Specifically, the Board screen is able to determine whats touching it (and how) through an embedded AI model thats been trained on the systems sensory outputs. It knows, for instance, how to distinguish between a hand accidentally brushing the board, a finger tapping the screen, and an arm passing over the board. It can also tell the difference between all 49 of the consoles game pieces using conductive traces, or unique patterns made out of a conductive material, that are etched onto the bottom of every piece.
30 fingers on the Board during the testing process. [Image: Board]
Alongside the Boards unique ability to distinguish touch, Putnam says, a top concern was the consoles durabilityespecially given that some of its games are designed to be enjoyed by players as young as six. The device comes with a spill-resistant gasket around the display and a tight internal structure to keep it safe from liquids and bumps.
My littlest one is 2, so she tends to use everything as a weapon, Putnam says. We have some great photos and videos from the testing process at the factory of te Board being submerged underwater, dropped from very high heights, and scratched multiple times.
[Image: Board]
How Board works
When users receive their Board, the device comes with 12 games made specifically for the console, as well as unique pieces tailored to each game. Seth Sivak, Boards chief creative officer and former CEO of the game studio Proletariat, led game development. He says the consoles portfolio of games was carefully crafted specifically to offer something for all different kinds of players.
[Photo: Board]
The options run the gamut from 60-second-long arcade-inspired games to an escape room-themed experience that can take up to 90 minutes to complete. Even within the games themselves, players of different ages and skill levels can find roles appropriate to themlike in the chef-inspired game Chop Chop, where the kind of utensil game piece chosen by each participant determines their role in the kitchen.
[Image: Board]
The 2 year old can be the sponge and feel a lot of joy cleaning the kitchen, but it’s very simple and intuitive for them to do, Putnam says. The grown-up can be in charge of managing the order tickets as they come in and strategizing about how to navigate the changing kitchen layout, recipes, and tickets. I think thats really hard to dothere’s not a ton of experiences that really make sure everyone has a seat at the table.
Right now, Sivak and his team are working to build out Boards IP into additional games. At the same time, Putnam says the company is working on making its software development kit available to external developers in order to bring existing games into the Board universe.
[Photo: Board]
Board is combining the old-school nostalgia of game night with all the advantages of digital gamingand it might just be a hit for everyone in the family.
I think for a lot of parents, myself included, you don’t want to pretend like technology doesn’t exist, because technology makes things betterBoard does the rule maintenance for you, it does the score keeping, it does all these things, Putnam says. But you don’t want technology to remove social interaction. It’s important that the screen brings people together. It doesn’t replace your friends or your family, it doesn’t replace your teacher, but it helps make those experiences more rich.
In his new book Ding Dong: How Ring Went from Shark Tank Reject to Everyones Front Door, Ring founder Jamie Siminoff pulls back the curtain on the chaotic, often absurd reality of building one of the most recognizable consumer tech brands of the last decade. The following excerpt captures one of the books most pivotal moments: the high-stakes, borderline-reckless gamble to secure the name Ring.com, a decision that nearly emptied the companys bank account, tested the patience of his investors, and set the stage for a brand that would soon reshape home security.
eBay.com. Half.com. Cars.com. Shop.com. Toys.com. And yes, Nest.com. So many great four-letter domain names. And I wanted one: Ring.com. The owner of the URL was willing to part with it for 2 million bucks. That represented a massive chunk of the money my VCs were about to give me. Neither they, nor a couple of my seasoned tech friends who had experience with overpriced domain names, thought it was a great use of my new capital. Nor did the fellow who ran the mezcal company on the other side of the wall of our Santa Monica office. Youre going out of business! Your doorbell doesnt work! Its just a name! he yelled at me in the parking lot as I walked to my car one evening. On one hand, I wanted to yell back that he didnt know what he was talking about; on the other, I wondered if he was right and I was making a huge mistake. I also wondered where his anger at me was coming from, but realized hed probably heard some of my own raging through the walls. Youre going to spend all that money on a stupid name?! he barked.Another doubter wondered, Jamie, does it really have to be four letters? Whats so special about four letters?
Yes, it had to be Ring. When Id come up with my voice message-to-email transcription service, I first called it Simulscribe, and it stagnated. When I changed the name to PhoneTag.com, we got a burst of interest. Names matter. I had once thought they shouldntall that mattered was having a quality product with an easy-to-understand benefit, a great customer experience, and a fair price. Turns out, the name matters.
I would not make that mistake again with the doorbell. Soon enough, there would be lots of video-doorbell competitors whose products might be almost as good as ours when we launched F5. So the way to separate ourselves from the competition was brand.
A mission as big as reducing crime in neighborhoods deserved a brand. That brand deserved a great name.
For some totally unfathomable and fortunate reason, this URL owner showed zero curiosity about the individual or company that was trying to buy his name. In our exchanges, it seemed almost as if he was unfamiliar with the internet, which was particularly weird for someone who harvested domain names.
I got the sense that for some time he had overplayed his hand, consistently valuing the URL higher than the market did. Which happens. Maybe he had tried to sell it during the dot-com boom for $10 million and it was worth only five then. Or maybe I was the one being played, and he knew exactly how much a perfect four-letter domain name could fetch, certainly way more than Id paid to own SlowDownAsshole.com ($15).
My friend Diego Berdakina brilliant entrepreneur, USC professor, and the single smartest person I knowurged me, explicitly, to not pay a cent more than $100k for Ring.com. I explicitly did not tell him the owners starting price.
First, I got the owner to knock the price down from $2 million to $1 million, but that was still an insane amount of up-front cash for a struggling startup to just light on fire, a full third of what I was getting from True Ventures. I had to figure a way to own the name without bankrupting our companywould the owner be interested in equity instead of cash?
No. Wow. Clearly he hadnt read about Googles recent multibillion-dollar acquisition of Nest. I made one last offer for slightly under $1 million.
Nope. One mill. We set a closing date.
I forgot one thing, though. I didnt have the money.
The morning of the closing, I called the owner. Listen, Im in the parking lot of my company and Im so embarrassed. The bad news is my board wont let me buy the name, full price today, for what I previously offered you. It was not a lie. I had a board. The only detail I left out was that the board was just me.
Wow, said the owner. Thats a dirty thing your board did.
Tell me about it. Worse than dirty. Disgusting.
Im very upset.
I hear you, brother. Me, too. I went on a bit. I doubled down about what a bunch of assholes my board were being. But the good news is Im authorized to deposit one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars in your account, todayI had $187,000 in the bank; the VC investments had not yet closedand the additional eight hundred twenty-five thousand paid in installments over two years, for a total of one million dollars.
He lost his shit. He unleashed a string of four-letter words very different from Ring and eBay and Half. Effing this, mother-effing that. The connection dropped. Hed hung up.
Damn, I thought. Had I overplayed my hand?
Fifteen minutes later, I got an email from him.
Wire the money.
He included his bank information.
He never asked who was on the board. Never asked what we did. I hope I would have, in his shoes. Maybe when youre offered a million bucks overall, with $175k coming that day, you just want to get it over with as quickly as possible.
I called my friend Adam dAugellithe young VC at True who had been my biggest championto boast what a great deal I had cut, that Id essentially just saved us so much money. He wasnt quite ready for high-fives; their investment was about to close, and already a significant chunk of it was gone because I had a jones for a great four-letter domain name. Adam was fully Team Siminoff but, as Id done with others, I was not making it easy for him.
Ring.com. What a great sound. As sweet as the three-toned jingle the doorbell made.
Media personalities and online influencers who sow social division for a living, blame the rise of assassination culture on Antifa and MAGA. Meanwhile, tech CEOs gin up fears of an AI apocalypse. But theyre both smokescreens hiding a bigger problem. Algorithms decide what we see, and in trying to win their approval, were changing how we behave.
Increasingly, that behavior is violent. The radicalization of young men on social networks isnt new. But modern algorithms are accelerating it.
Before Facebook and Twitter (X) switched from displaying the latest post from one of your friends at the top of your feed with crazy, outrageous posts from people you don’t know, Al Qaeda operatives were quietly recruiting isolated and disillusioned young men to join the Caliphate, one by one. But the days of man-to-man proselytizing have long since been replaced by opaque algorithms that display whatever content gets the most likes, comments, and shares.
Enrage to engage is a business model. Algorithmic design amplifies the most hysterical content, normalizing extremist views to the point where outrage feels like civic participation. Its a kind of shell game.
Heres how it works:
Politicians and CEOs spin apocalyptic narratives
Online influencers chime in
Algorithms spread the most outrageous content
Public sentiment hardens
Violence gains legitimacy
Our democracy erodes
The algorithms dont just amplifythey also decide who sees what, creating parallel worlds that make it harder for us to understand our opposing tribe members. For example, Facebooks News Feed algorithm prioritizes posts that generate emotional reactions. YouTubes recommendation system steers viewers toward similar content that keeps them watching. And it’s a total mystery how TikToks For You Page keeps users glued to the app.
You search for a yoga mat on your phone, and the ranking algorithms decide youre a liberal. Your neighbor searches for trucks, and the system tags them as a conservative. Before long, your feed fills with mindfulness podcasts and climate headlines, while your neighbors features off-roading videos and political commentary about overregulation. Each of you thinks youre just seeing whats out there, but youre actually looking at customized realities.
Up to now, the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, along with the brutal killings of elected officials Melissa Hortman and her husband, embassy staffers Sarah Lynn Milgram and Yaron Lischinsky, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, and Blackstone real-estate executive Wesley LePatner have all been tied to a rising wave of political violence. They are more likely the result of online radicalization being accelerated through social media algorithms.
Given the snails pace of our judicial system, and the labor-intensive process of reconstructing someones path to radicalization online, the smoking gun is elusive. In the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting, it took five years to reach a conviction. In the meantime, more people consumed extremist content giving rise to what the FBI now calls nihilistic violent extremism, which is violence driven less by ideology than by alienation, performative rage, and the quest for social status. By the time one case is resolved, new permission structures for violence take root, showing just how powerless our legal system is at policing social media platforms.
What drives these communities isnt ideology so much as a search for belonging, status, and personal power. The need for validation is intertwined with whatever or whoever is commanding the most attention at any given moment. These days, the issue that has captured the most attention is an AI apocalypse. As new grievances take shape around artificial intelligence and national fears of job loss, technology executives are increasingly exposed to threats of physical violence, says Alex Goldenberg, director of intelligence at Narravance, which monitors social media in real time to detect threats for clients.
Are predictions of AI joblessness stoked by algorithmic fear-mongering a recipe for social unrest? While high-profile tech CEOs have long traveled with security details, new data suggests those threats have extended to all corporate sectors. A study of over 2,300 corporate security chiefs at global companies with combined revenues exceeding $25 trillion found that 44% of the companies are actively monitoring mainstream social media, the deep web (content not indexed by Google), and the dark web (where criminals and dissidents go for cover). Two-thirds of those companies are increasing their physical security budgets in response to rising online threats, according to the study by security company Allied Universal.
Before December, fewer than half of CEOs had any kind of executive protection. Now boards are demanding it, says Glen Kucera, president of Allied Universal. Executives make up 30% of a companys value, and shareholders want them protected. Companies are responding by hardening their perimeters, hiring armed escorts and social media threat analysts, and addressing vulnerabilities at executives homes. For CEOs, AI is both a windfall and a minefield. Its too lucrative to ignore, but too unsettling to discuss freely. High-profile people making controversial announcements about AI are at higher risk, says Kucera.
According to Michael Gips, managing director at multinational financial and risk advisory firm Kroll, these findings fit into a broader trend, Were living in a grievance culture now, he says. If theres something to be grieved about, the risk is there.
Even the people shaping this technology acknowledge its risks. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has said he believes the worst case for AI is lights out for all of us. Elon Musk has made similar warnings, cautioning that theres some chance that [AI] goes wrong and destroys humanity. OpenAI cofounder Ilya Sutskever repotedly talked about building a doomsday bunker for OpenAI engineers in the post-AGI world.
Narravance analysts say apocalyptic narratives around AIespecially those centered on job losspromote online radicalization. After reading dystopian narratives about AI-driven unemployment, 17.5% of U.S. adults in a statistically significant sample said violence against Musk is justified. Musks remark about universal job loss spread rapidly across social platforms, stripped of nuance, meme-ified, and reframed as a prophecy of societal collapse. In online communities where people are hungry for belonging and validation, Musks rhetoric becomes the basis of permission structures that rationalize violence.
Prior to his resignation from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), negative sentiment toward Musk was higher. In March 2025 nearly 32% of Americans said they believed his assassination would be justified, according to another Narravance study. On Sam Altmans blog, the OpenAI CEO wrote, The development of superhuman machine intelligence is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity. The more tech leaders issue dire predictions, the more support for unjustified violence against them grows.
Alarmingly, Narravance also found that respondents said violence would be justified against Alex Karp, CEO of surveillance and defense AI company Palantir (15.4%), Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg of (14.5%), Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (13.8%), and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman (13.3%).
Fear of obsolescence
As soon as Charlie Kirk was assassinated, a video went around the world. Ten-year-olds saw it within hours, said Jonathan Haidt, author of The Anxious Generation, at the Fast Company Innovation Festival.
Haidt argues that since 2012 the share of adolescents who say their lives feel useless has more than doubled, and that boys in particular, left without traditional guidance and immersed in social media, gaming, and pornography, are struggling to find a path to adulthood.
If you’re a boy, and your life feels useless, and you see no future, everything is about getting fame or money. You have to get rich quick or become famous, otherwise youll lose in the mating game, says Haidt. Boys around the world, historically, have gambled. Do something big. Get recognition, he says.
A former senior social media executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity said negative narratives create desperation. When you give people doom scenarios, theyre going to be willing to do outrageous things, he says. Its an unfortunate by-product of the social media business.
Social media meltdown
Social media is a cancer, Utah Governor Spencer Cox said on 60 Minutes a few weeks after Kirks murder. Its taking all of our worst impulses and putting them on steroids . . . driving us to division and hate. These algorithms have captured our very souls. His dire warning underscores how platforms reward outrage, feed polarization, and erode the boundaries that once kept political disagreement from spilling into violence and chaos.
In another interview, on Meet the Press, Cox argued that social media companies have hacked our brains, getting people addicted to outrage in ways that fuel division and erode agency. He said he believes that social media has played a direct role in every assassination or attempt in the past five to six years. The conflict entrepreneurs are taking advantage of us, and we are losing our agency, and we have to take that back, he said.
When outrage gets amplified, all engagement looks like an endorsement, people mistake that as truth, even though it may be false or, worse yet, coordinated inauthentic activity spun up by the Chinese controlled TikTok algorithm or Russian bot farms.
According to a report from safety research nonprofit FAR.AI, with artificial intelligence already more persuasive than humans, and frontier LLMs guiding political manipulation, disinformation, and terrorism recruitment efforts, the risks are already multiplying exponentially. Predictions of a dystopian, jobless AI future pale by comparison.
The real threat is the erosion of human judgment itself. The existential risk of AIfirst raised in 1975 by computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum in his prescient book Computer Power and the Human Reasonis not joblessness or humanity suspended in Matrix-style bio-pods. The danger isnt sentient machines. Its algorithms engineered to keep us engaged, enraged, and endlessly divided. The apocalypse wont come from code, but from our surrender to it.
When I launched my first business in my twenties, I thought success meant doing everything alone. I believed that if I worked hard enough, read every business book, and put in the hours, Id eventually figure it all out. What I quickly realized, however, is that you dont find the most valuable growth strategy in your balance sheet. You find it in your network.
As the founder of Boston Business Women, Ive watched thousands of women start and scale companies over the last decade. In 2024, women started 49% of all new businesses in the U.S., up from just 29% five years earlier. And while that growth is impressive, the gap between potential and access still looms large. Women still receive less than 2% of venture capital funding, and 63% say theyve never had a formal mentor. Those two gaps, in capital and mentorship, often stand between a good idea and a thriving business.
The good news is that networking can bridge both. To make it work, women must move beyond the traditional view of networking as transactional. When they do it strategically, it becomes a system for building visibility, credibility, and opportunity.
The importance of building relationships
Networking isnt about showing up everywhere. Its about showing up with purpose. Ive seen too many founders collect business cards or LinkedIn connections without ever forming real relationships. True networking is about depth, not breadth. When you approach connection as a way to create mutual value (rather than solely what you can get from it), everything changes.
One founder in our community, for instance, started a skincare line out of her apartment. At one of our events, she struck up a conversation with a boutique owner. What started as a casual chat about small-business challenges turned into a partnership that tripled her monthly revenue. That opportunity didnt come from chasing investors or cold emails. It came from being curious, genuine, and open to collaboration.
This is how networking closes the capital gap. Investors fund people they trust. Lenders take chances on those with credible advocates. Relationships lead to referrals, introductions, and insights that can open doors money alone cannot.
Why you should seek mentorship in every room
Theres a lack of formal mentorship programs for women, and as a result, that prevents them from seeking guidance. The best mentorship, however, doesnt always come from a program. It comes from proximity. I tell women all the timementorship doesnt have to look like a scheduled call with a seasoned executive. Sometimes, its a peer whos just two steps ahead and willing to share what shes learned.
Ive seen countless informal mentorships bloom this way. A founder struggling with supplier delays finds help from another woman whos already solved that problem. A marketing consultant reviews anothers pitch deck over coffee. These moments might seem small, but they create a culture of shared wisdom, and that culture is what sustains women-led businesses.
When we normalize asking for help and offering it freely, we multiply collective knowledge. When mentorship becomes embedded in a community, women stop competing for limited seats at the table and start pulling up chairs for one another.
Networking is about both capital and connection
Access to funding isnt just about numbers on a term sheet. Its about who you know and who knows you. The more trust and visibility you have within your network, the more likely opportunities will find you. Ive seen women secure lines of credit, partnerships, and investors not through formal pitches, but through introductions within their networks.
One entrepreneur I know secured her first round of funding after a fellow founder introduced her to an angel investor. Another landed a wholesale deal after someone she met at a conference recommended her products to a buyer.
Networking creates a ripple effect. Each connection leads to another, expanding influence and credibility. When women intentionally invest in those relationships, theyre also investing in their future access to capital.
Treat your network like an ecosystem
Building a network isnt a onetime task. Its an ongoing practice. Too often, entrepreneurs treat networking like a short-term strategy rather than a long-term investment. You should nurture your networks the same way you nurture your customers, with consistency, care, and follow-through.
Reach out even when you dont need something. Celebrate others wins. Offer introductions. The women who do this well understand that generosity compounds. What you give to your network almost always finds its way back to you, often in unexpected and transformative ways.
At Boston Business Women, Ive watched this cycle repeat itself thousands of times. A new founder shows up nervous and unsure. Months later, shes connecting others, mentoring peers, and referring business. Thats the power of an ecosystem. It turns isolation into momentum.
Networking requires you to play the long game
Networking isnt a quick fix. Its a long game. Some of my best opportunities came years after the first handshake, long after Id forgotten the initial exchange. The women who understand this approach networking as a practice, rather than a tactic. Every introduction, every conversation, and every act of generosity plants a seed that may not bloom immediately, but will eventually grow into something meaningful.
If we can play the long game together, leading with purpose, giving before we get, and staying connected through the inevitable highs and lows of entrepreneurship, we can close the capital and mentorship gap once and for all.
