Every year, one of my favorite things to read is the Berkshire Hathaway annual letter. The 2018 version is out and, as always, is a beautiful thing to read if you have any interest in business and economics.

I particularly loved Warren Buffett’s reflections at the end of the letter in a section called The American Tailwind, which follows:

On March 11th, it will be 77 years since I first invested in an American business. The year was 1942, I was11, and I went all in, investing $114.75 I had begun accumulating at age six. What I bought was three shares of CitiesService preferred stock. I had become a capitalist, and it felt good.

Let’s now travel back through the two 77-year periods that preceded my purchase. That leaves us starting in1788, a year prior to George Washington’s installation as our first president. Could anyone then have imagined whattheir new country would accomplish in only three 77-year lifetimes?

During the two 77-year periods prior to 1942, the United States had grown from four million people – about 1⁄2 of 1% of the world’s population – into the most powerful country on earth. In that spring of 1942, though, it faced a crisis: The U.S. and its allies were suffering heavy losses in a war that we had entered only three months earlier. Bad news arrived daily.

Despite the alarming headlines, almost all Americans believed on that March 11th that the war would bewon. Nor was their optimism limited to that victory. Leaving aside congenital pessimists, Americans believed thattheir children and generations beyond would live far better lives than they themselves had led.

The nation’s citizens understood, of course, that the road ahead would not be a smooth ride. It never hadbeen. Early in its history our country was tested by a Civil War that killed 4% of all American males and led PresidentLincoln to openly ponder whether “a nation so conceived and so dedicated could long endure.” In the 1930s, Americasuffered through the Great Depression, a punishing period of massive unemployment.

Nevertheless, in 1942, when I made my purchase, the nation expected post-war growth, a belief that provedto be well-founded. In fact, the nation’s achievements can best be described as breathtaking.

Let’s put numbers to that claim: If my $114.75 had been invested in a no-fee S&P 500 index fund, and alldividends had been reinvested, my stake would have grown to be worth (pre-taxes) $606,811 on January 31, 2019 (thelatest data available before the printing of this letter). That is a gain of 5,288 for 1. Meanwhile, a $1 million investmentby a tax-free institution of that time – say, a pension fund or college endowment – would have grown to about $5.3billion.

Let me add one additional calculation that I believe will shock you: If that hypothetical institution had paidonly 1% of assets annually to various “helpers,” such as investment managers and consultants, its gain would havebeen cut in half, to $2.65 billion. That’s what happens over 77 years when the 11.8% annual return actually achievedby the S&P 500 is recalculated at a 10.8% rate.

Those who regularly preach doom because of government budget deficits (as I regularly did myself for manyyears) might note that our country’s national debt has increased roughly 400-fold during the last of my 77-year periods.That’s 40,000%! Suppose you had foreseen this increase and panicked at the prospect of runaway deficits and aworthless currency. To “protect” yourself, you might have eschewed stocks and opted instead to buy 31⁄4 ounces ofgold with your $114.75.

And what would that supposed protection have delivered? You would now have an asset worth about $4,200,less than 1% of what would have been realized from a simple unmanaged investment in American business. Themagical metal was no match for the American mettle.

Our country’s almost unbelievable prosperity has been gained in a bipartisan manner. Since 1942, we havehad seven Republican presidents and seven Democrats. In the years they served, the country contended at various timeswith a long period of viral inflation, a 21% prime rate, several controversial and costly wars, the resignation of apresident, a pervasive collapse in home values, a paralyzing financial panic and a host of other problems. Allengendered scary headlines; all are now history.

Christopher Wren, architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral, lies buried within that London church. Near his tomb areposted these words of description (translated from Latin): “If you would seek my monument, look around you.” Thoseskeptical of America’s economic playbook should heed his message.

In 1788 – to go back to our starting point – there really wasn’t much here except for a small band of ambitiouspeople and an embryonic governing framework aimed at turning their dreams into reality. Today, the Federal Reserveestimates our household wealth at $108 trillion, an amount almost impossible to comprehend.

Remember, earlier in this letter, how I described retained earnings as having been the key to Berkshire’sprosperity? So it has been with America. In the nation’s accounting, the comparable item is labeled “savings.” Andsave we have. If our forefathers had instead consumed all they produced, there would have been no investment, noproductivity gains and no leap in living standards.

Also published on Medium.

Indian delivery men working with the food delivery apps Uber Eats and Swiggy wait to pick up an order outside a restaurant in Mumbai. ( INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty Images)

Tesla last week rolled out "dog mode" as part of a software update, designed to keep dogs safe and cool inside the car. However animal welfare group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) warns that the new feature — while well-intentioned — is not the best idea for dog owners.

The idea for dog mode seems to have come about after someone tweeted Tesla CEO Elon Musk with the idea in October.

The tech mogul, who like to includes quirks in his cars such as the ability to dance to the trans Siberian orchestra, and farting unicorn Easter eggs, simply replied "yes."

Read more: Elon Musk got into the weirdest fight over a farting unicorn

Last week the update was rolled out along with "sentry mode," which causes the car to blare loud classical music if it senses someone trying to break in.

A Tesla spokeswoman said in an email to Business Insider that dog mode "keeps your dog at a comfortable temperature in your car while letting people passing by know that the owner will be back soon."

Tesla released a video last Wednesday showing off how dog mode works.

Animal groups have their doubts. When contacted by Business Insider, a spokeswoman for PETA said that while dog mode is a nice idea, she would caution against using it.

"We thank Tesla for thinking about the dogs who lose their lives in cars every single summer, but we caution that the 'dog mode' function isn't foolproof and could provide a false sense of security, as engines and air conditioning can cut out. The notice in the window telling passers-by that everything is all right is also cause for concern, as it might dissuade someone from intervening if the technology does malfunction. The safest way for anyone to protect dogs when temperatures soar is simply to leave them at home — with plenty of water," she said.

A spokeswoman for the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) — the UK's leading animal charity — had similar concerns.

"Technology can fail and it isn't worth the risk of injury to your pet to put them in this situation, we would advise you leave them at home or with a trusted friend or dog-sitter if you know you are going to be away a longer time."

In the US 56 pets died inside hot cars in 2018, most of them dogs according to PETA. The RSPCA was unable to provide the exact number, but said that during a heatwave from June 1 to July 24 2018, its emergency hotline received 3,832 calls.

Tesla did not comment directly on PETA and the RSPCA's stance.

You can find advice for how to respond if you see a dog in a locked car on PETA's website. If you are based in the UK, the RSPCA's advice is to to call 999 if you see a dog in distress in a car on a warm day.

YouTube channels that promote anti-vaccination content are not allowed to run ads on the video sharing platform, according to a policy first reported by BuzzFeed News on Friday.

YouTube said that it considers anti-vaccination content to be "dangerous or harmful," which as a policy, it does not allow to be monetized— meaning that it won't allow the video to generate any money for the creator from advertising.

"We have strict policies that govern what videos we allow ads to appear on, and videos that promote anti-vaccination content are a violation of those policies. We enforce these policies vigorously, and if we find a video that violates them, we immediately take action and remove ads," a YouTube spokesperson told Business Insider in a statement.

YouTube told us that restricting ads for anti-vaccination videos is not a new policy for the company. However, at least a few channels were able to monetize, in violation of this policy, according to BuzzFeed News.

According to the BuzzFeed News report, several channels promoting the anti-vaccine content — including VAXXED TV, LarryCook333, and iHealthTub — were able to run ads, unbeknownst to the advertisers themselves. Several companies reportedly asked YouTube to stop their ads from being placed on the videos, while one — a discount vitamin company called Vitacost — pulled their ads from YouTube entirely, according to the report.

YouTube has since prevented all three channels from running ads, after BuzzFeed News brought the matter to the company's intention.

Social media platforms, including Facebook and YouTube, have been used aggressively by anti-vaccination proponents. Pinterest, meanwhile, blocked searches for anti-vaccine content from its service earlier this week.

This all comes even as outbreaks of measles have spiked this year. Since January, there have been over 120 instances of measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That's more than the entire year of 2016, when there were only 86.

California Congressman Adam Schiff sent a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg last week expressing concern over the information on both companies' sites that "discourages parents from vaccinating their children, contributing to declining vaccination rates which could reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases."

Read more: Anti-vaccination ads on Facebook are targeting pregnant women, while a measles outbreak spreads across the country

This January, YouTube announced that had made updates to its recommendation algorithm, promising it would promote fewer conspiracy theory videos to its users. Examples YouTube gave at the time of "borderline" content included videos claiming that the Earth was flat, or those espousing serious medical misinformation.

Got a tip? Contact this reporter via Signal at +1 (209) 730-3387, email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., or Twitter DM at @nickbastone.

President Donald Trump is blaming the "radical left" for Amazon's decision to ditch New York as the site of its second quarters.

In a press conference on Friday, Trump said that Amazon's decision not to go ahead with its HQ2 plans in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens is a "big loss for New York City."

"If you look at the deal, the deal was not a great deal ... they could have made a better deal than that — a much better deal," Trump said. "But still, I think it's a loss for New York City."

Trump noted that the $3 billion in tax breaks that were offered to Amazon were not a check, but instead money that would be offered over a period of time as the company provided jobs and taxes in the area.

Read more: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says that $3 billion in tax credits should be given to the public, not Amazon — and a new poll shows that nearly half of Americans agree

The president additionally blamed progressive critics of Amazon for the outcome.

"It's the kind of thinking that our country is going to on the left, on the radical left," Trump said. "But, ultimately, it's not good for jobs and it's not good for the economy."

"I come from New York City," Trump added. "I love New York City."

Last week, Amazon announced it would not move forward with plans to build a headquarters in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens.

Amazon said it made the decision because "a number of state and local politicians have made it clear that they oppose our presence and will not work with us to build the type of relationships that are required to go forward with the project."

Amazon's plans raised concerns that the second headquarters could increase homelessness rates, send rents skyrocketing, paralyze public transportation, and create other problems for residents. As a result, many New York politicians and local activists spoke out against Amazon's HQ2 plans over the last few months.

"Amazon is a billion-dollar company," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, tweeted in November. "The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here."

"Offering massive corporate welfare from scarce public resources to one of the wealthiest corporations in the world at a time of great need in our state is just wrong," the City Council member Jimmy Van Bramer and state Sen. Michael Gianaris, each of whom represents Long Island City, said in a scathing joint statement.

"We were not elected to serve as Amazon drones," they added.

A group of Microsoft employees are demanding that the company's leadership abandon a contract with the United States Army that they say makes them into "war profiteers" — a contract that relates to Microsoft's HoloLens augmented reality technology.

On Friday, a group of workers at the Redmond, Washington tech giant released an open letter in which they slammed a $749 million contract the company holds to develop a "Integrated Visual Augmentation System" (IVAS) to build "a single platform that Soldiers can use to Fight, Rehearse, and Train that provides increased lethality, mobility, and situational awareness necessary to achieve overmatch against our current and future adversaries."

"We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used," the letter reads. "As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers. To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence."

50 employees have signed the letter so far, and organisers say that number is expected to grow.

The organized action comes just days before Microsoft is widely expected to unveil a new HoloLens headset at the Mobile World Congress technology conference in Europe, and is a sign of the rising tide of labor activism in the American technology industry.

"We are going public with the demand to cancel the Hololens DoD contract because we want our voices to be heard on this life or death matter," a Microsoft worker who asked to remain anonymous told Business Insider. "We haven't heard back from Microsoft officially, or from any execs at this point — we're hoping this open letter will help get us a response."

Microsoft employees have also protested company bids for other military contracts before. And multiple other tech companies have also been roiled by protests over military applications of their technology over the last year.

In June 2018, Google cancelled a US military contract after internal uproar. Amazon has also faced protests over military contracts, though CEO Jeff Bezos has said the company has no plans to end them — even implicitly rebuking Google for its actions as unpatriotic. "If big tech companies are going to turn their back on the US Department of Defense, this country is going to be in trouble," Bezos said in October.

The same anonymous Microsoft worker challenged this argument, saying: "Jeff Bezos and other tech execs reap massive profits from military contracts. Patriotism is just a front. If we look at who benefits, it is certainly not the individual engineers working at these companies."

A Microsoft spokesperson did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

Dear Satya Nadella and Brad Smith,

We are a global coalition of Microsoft workers, and we refuse to create technology for warfare and oppression. We are alarmed that Microsoft is working to provide weapons technology to the U.S. Military, helping one country's government "increase lethality" using tools we built. We did not sign up to develop weapons, and we demand a say in how our work is used.

In November, Microsoft was awarded the $479 million Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS) contract with the United States Department of the Army. The contract's stated objective is to "rapidly develop, test, and manufacture a single platform that Soldiers can use to Fight, Rehearse, and Train that provides increased lethality, mobility, and situational awareness necessary to achieve overmatch against our current and future adversaries." Microsoft intends to apply its HoloLens augmented reality technology to this purpose. While the company has previously licensed tech to the U.S. Military, it has never crossed the line into weapons development. With this contract, it does. The application of HoloLens within the IVAS system is designed to help people kill. It will be deployed on the battlefield, and works by turning warfare into a simulated "video game," further distancing soldiers from the grim stakes of war and the reality of bloodshed.

Intent to harm is not an acceptable use of our technology.

We demand that Microsoft:

1) Cancel the IVAS contract;

2) Cease developing any and all weapons technologies, and draft a public-facing acceptable use policy clarifying this commitment;

3) Appoint an independent, external ethics review board with the power to enforce and publicly validate compliance with its acceptable use policy.

Although a review process exists for ethics in AI, AETHER, it is opaque to Microsoft workers, and clearly not robust enough to prevent weapons development, as the IVAS contract demonstrates. Without such a policy, Microsoft fails to inform its engineers on the intent of the software they are building. Such a policy would also enable workers and the public to hold Microsoft accountable.

Brad Smith's suggestion that employees concerned about working on unethical projects "would be allowed to move to other work within the company" ignores the problem that workers are not properly informed of the use of their work. There are many engineers who contributed to HoloLens before this contract even existed, believing it would be used to help architects and engineers build buildings and cars, to help teach people how to perform surgery or play the piano, to push the boundaries of gaming, and to connect with the Mars Rover (RIP). These engineers have now lost their ability to make decisions about what they work on, instead finding themselves implicated as war profiteers.

Microsoft's guidelines on accessibility and security go above and beyond because we care about our customers. We ask for the same approach to a policy on ethics and acceptable use of our technology. Making our products accessible to all audiences has required us to be proactive and unwavering about inclusion. If we don't make the same commitment to be ethical, we won't be. We must design against abuse and the potential to cause violence and harm.

Microsoft's mission is to empower every person and organization on the planet to do more. But implicit in that statement, we believe it is also Microsoft's mission to empower every person and organization on the planet to do good. We also need to be mindful of who we're empowering and what we're empowering them to do. Extending this core mission to encompass warfare and disempower Microsoft employees, is disingenuous, as "every person" also means empowering us. As employees and shareholders we do not want to become war profiteers. To that end, we believe that Microsoft must stop in its activities to empower the U.S. Army's ability to cause harm and violence.

Microsoft Workers

For the past six months, I've had a new roommate: Apple's HomePod.

The $350 smart speaker, which Apple released in January 2018, is Apple's first foray into the world of smart speakers. While it has been lauded for its sound, critics mostly panned it for lacking many of the "smarts" its competitors have, being limited to iPhone and Apple Music users only, and its price tag.

Still, I wanted to give the HomePod a shot. It's now been living in my apartment since August, and I've been using it to play music, answer random questions, set timers, check the weather, and more.

And after about six months, I think I've found the best use for it yet.

Read more:I spent an hour with Apple's new HomePod smart speaker — here's what it's like

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Since 2014, I've been using a 32-inch Sony TV. It's a nice little TV, but it didn't have great speakers to begin with, and they've only gotten worse over time.

My TV is hooked up to an Apple TV, which I absolutely love. I'm able to watch all the shows and movies I want, and if there's something on live network TV, I have an antenna I can plug in (or, if I'm trying to watch the Buffalo Bills on Sundays, I can set up the game on a MacBook and use AirPlay to get it up on the TV).

So while that system has worked out great, there's always been one niggling little problem: the audio.

That's where the HomePod comes in.

Not long after setting it up in my home, my boyfriend and I realized we could pair the HomePod with our Apple TV (to do it, open Settings on your Apple TV, then navigate to Video and Audio > Audio Output > HomePod). Now, all the sound was routed through the HomePod instead of my TV's somewhat pathetic speakers.

It's not a perfect system. A lot of times, my Apple TV will default to the TV's speakers, and I have to manually select HomePod as the audio output (to do that while watching a show, swipe down on the remote's touchpad, toggle over to Audio, and make sure there's a checkmark next to HomePod).

But when it's working properly, my TV-viewing experience is completely changed.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The HomePod sounds incredible. It delivers rich, immersive, balanced sound that completely fills the room (granted, my living room is pretty tiny). Before, I felt like I was constantly cranking the volume on my TV's speakers — now, the HomePod typically hovers around 50%.

And one of the nice perks is that I can control the volume using my Apple TV remote, or ask Siri to adjust the volume for me.

Now, I do realize that there are other solutions for fixing TV audio, solutions that likely cost far less than $350. But with the HomePod, you also get Siri (for whatever that's worth); the ability to play music from the HomePod the rest of the time without having to disconnect it from your TV; and the general ease of use that Apple products provide.

So if you're an Apple TV user, and you're considering a smart speaker, don't discount the HomePod.

Evan Williams, who ran Twitter as CEO for two years before founding and running Medium, has stepped down from Twitter's board of directors after 13 years. The company announced his departure in a filing Friday.

"It's been an incredible 13 years, and I'm proud of what Twitter has accomplished during my time with the company. I will continue rooting for the team as I focus my time on other projects," Williams said in a statement.

Williams, who is CEO of Medium as well as a partner at Obvious Ventures, has not always seen eye-to-eye with his cofounder and current Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Williams reportedly led the coup which led to Dorsey stepping down from the helm back in 2008.

Read more:The Evolution of Ev: The creator of Twitter, Blogger, and Medium has a plan to fix the mess he made of the internet Williams then took over as CEO and held the role until 2010, when he was replaced by Dick Costolo, who ultimately took the company public in 2013.

After Twitter posted its public filing, Williams confirmed the news on none other than Twitter.com.

Dorsey followed up with his own kind words and emoji love.

Microsoft Clippy, the animated cartoon paperclip everyone loved to hate, is seeing a resurgence in popularity. Clippy is now being recognized as the trailblazer he was.

When Chloe Condon, a newly hired Microsoft cloud evangelist, ordered new business cards, she avoided the standard corporate look and instead went with Clippy-themed cards and tweeted them out.

Condon has a lot of Twitter followers from several bouts in the spotlight. In 2017, her hilarious-yet-sad social-commentary essay "What It's Like to Be a Woman at a Tech Conference" went viral. And then, earlier this year, one of the pictures she posted in that article made her the target of a weird social media brouhaha when someone used it and claimed it was a photo of a woman who had stalked him at a tech conference. Condon called the guy out, and Mashable ran a story that outed the guy for a series of fake photos with fake stories, including one that featured a Hollywood wax replica of Seth Rogen.

But the Clippy business cards are for real.

They've got a picture of Clippy on the front and on the back they say, "It looks like you are trying to get in touch with Chloe," with her contact info listed below. That's a play on Clippy's signature wording, "It looks like you are trying to ..." when Clippy would then offer tips on whatever MS Office feature it thought you were trying to use.

Naturally, the Clippy The Paperclip Twitter account loved these cards. He tweeted, "@chloecondon It looks like you're using my likeness on your new business cards. Would you like help with WAIT I'M ON BUSINESS CARDS NOW?!"And then former Microsoft exec Steven Sinofsky, the man credited for developing Microsoft Office into a massive hit, noticed the cards and tweeted, "I suppose if you live long enough, others will wear your failures as a badge of honor."

For those that don't know, Clippy was a cartoon character talking paperclip that pestered users of the late 1990's version of Microsoft Office. He wiggled in the corner, jumping into the screen trying to be helpful, offering usage hints and tricks.

After four years of scorn, Clippy was officially retired in 2001. Sinofsky tells Business Insider that the company even issued a funny press release about it.

"He's quite down in the dumps," product manager Lisa Gurry joked in that press release. "He has even started his own campaign to try to get his old job back, or find a new one."

Microsoft even held an official retirement party for him in San Francisco, too. Sinfosky shared a photo from that party with us, which you can see below. If you look closely, you'll see unemployed Clippy is actually using the party thrown in his honor to collect charity for himself and beg for food. So sad.

Steven Sinofsky

Still, thanks to Siri, Cortana, and Google Assistant, Clippy's day in the pop-culture doghouse seems to be over.

Not only is Sinofsky calling him a newfound badge of honor, but others are seeing him for the visionary he was, calling him ahead of his time.

And Condon received such an outpouring of praise for her cards, she invited the world to copy her idea and gave everyone a referral to the place where she had them printed.

Twitter user @crgrieve summarized the internet's response to the cards with this tweet, "Me: 'I don't need business cards, just get me on twitter' *Sees @ChloeCondon 's clippy business cards* Me: 'I need business cards and will give them out to everyone.'"

Early interest among these Business Insider respondents, who are typically young and tech-savvy, is a promising sign that foldable phones will become the next step in the smartphone's evolution, especially given all the benefits it comes with. For example, foldable phones should let users comfortably carry a device with a large screen, provide a better experience for various activities, like video viewing, and enable users to multitask and enhance productivity.

Unfortunately for Apple, it's trailing behind Samsung in the race to launch a foldable phone, which could cost it customers. Apple has yet to confirm plans to launch a foldable phone and reports suggest it won't do so until at least late 2020. While Apple has historically leaned on its brand loyalty to launch new and innovative hardware after its competitors without significant losses, this strategy may not pay off this time around.

Business Insider Intelligence

Over two-thirds (68%) of iPhone owners said that they're interested in a foldable phone as their next smartphone. And without a foldable iPhone variant on the market, interested iOS users might look to the Android ecosystem, which will be populated with foldable phones. If this were to occur, it would be detrimental to Apple's bottom line, especially since the iPhone makes up the bulk (62%) of Apple's revenue.

However, Samsung must stay aggressive by addressing its foldable phone's major flaw — price point. Although consumers across both Android and iOS ecosystems are highly interested, the Galaxy Fold's starting price point of $1,980 is likely unattainable for most consumers. Samsung will need to either offer generous discounts to the Galaxy Fold or launch a second-generation foldable phone in the next year, which would still beat Apple's timeline, at a more palatable consumer price point to widen the addressable market.

The business-development team at MoviePass was laid off on Thursday, multiple sources familiar with the decision told Business Insider.

The loss of the Los Angeles-based, three-person team — who were given the news by MoviePass CEO Mitch Lowe — is the latest in a string of departures at the movie-ticket subscription company. In the last month, several employees, including some on the management level, have resigned or been let go, the sources told Business Insider. The salaried staff is now about 50 people (at the end of 2018, there were about 60 staffers, at its height it was about 80).

These layoffs came on the heels of MoviePass' parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics (HMNY), being kicked off the Nasdaq earlier this month. It had failed to meet the Nasdaq's listing standards by trading at less than $1 per share since July. The stock price crashed as HMNY sold new shares to offset hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.

Read more: MoviePass has been hit with a lawsuit from subscribers alleging it's a "bait and switch" scheme

At the time of the delisting, HMNY said in a statement that the "delisting has no effect on the day-to-day business operations of HMNY or its subsidiaries, including MoviePass and MoviePass Films."

But the continued layoffs and departures tell a different story.

Employee morale has been low for months. Product manager Eric Jeng sent a scathing letter to the entire staff when he resigned in January, blasting management, particularly for how they responded to Business Insider's reporting on MoviePass employee allegations of inappropriate conduct by a contractor.

MoviePass did not respond to a request for comment.

Richard Branson's company, Virgin Galactic, has flown its first passenger on a rocket-powered spaceship.

The flight is part of a decades-long effort by multiple companies to usher in an era of frequent and safe suborbital space tourism, in which vehicles can fly high enough to briefly enter space, provide minutes of zero-gravity, and then return to the ground.

On Friday, Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo vehicle, named "VSS Unity," did just that. Unity lifted off the ground under the wings of a double-bodied airplane mothership called WhiteKnightTwo. Once at the proper altitude, the vehicle dropped from its mothership, ignited a rubber-fuel rocket engine, and soared high above Earth.

Unity accelerated to about three times the speed of sound and reached an altitude of 55.87 miles (89.9 km), according to Virgin Galactic. That's about 10 times higher than a typical passenger jet's cruising altitude. It's the second flight to puncture the boundary that the US government considers to be the edge of space.

Virgin Galactic's first passenger wasn't a tourist who bought a $250,000 ticket, though — it was Beth Moses, the company's chief astronaut instructor, who tested the crew cabin and experienced several minutes of weightlessness inside. She is the first person to fly as a passenger aboard a commercial spaceship.

"The crew enjoyed extraordinary views of Earth from the black skies of space and, during several minutes of weightlessness, Beth floated free to complete a number of cabin evaluation test points," Virgin Galactic said in a press release. "The human validation of data previously collected via sensors, and the live testing of other physical elements of the cabin interior, are fundamental to the provision of a safe but enjoyable customer experience."

However, another billionaire interested in space tourism — Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and the aerospace company Blue Origin— questioned the capabilities of Virgin Galactic earlier this week.

"One of the issues that Virgin Galactic will have to address, eventually, is that they are not flying above the Kármán line. Not yet. The vehicle isn't quite capable," Bezos said during an event at the Wings Club in New York on Tuesday.

Bezos explained that not going beyond this point would leave "asterisks" next to space flyers' names.

What the Kármán line is and why Blue Orgin is targeting it

Inside the SpaceShipTwo or VSS Unity rocket ship as it flew near the edge of space on February 22, 2019. Beth Moses (center) was the company's first passenger.Virgin Galactic

There is no official, globally recognized boundary for where Earth ends and space begins. In fact, just this month researchers said the outer fringes of Earth's atmosphere stretch more than 150,000 miles beyond the moon.

Still, Earth's air pressure drops off dramatically at high altitudes, and wing-based lift begins to peter out if a vehicle gets dozens of miles high. NASA and the US Air Force consider the demarcation between pilots and astronauts to be at an altitude of 50 miles (80 kilometers).

But "for most of the world ... the edge of space is defined as 100 kilometers" or 62 miles high, Bezos said on Tuesday during a conversation moderated by Jeff Foust of Space News.

That boundary is named after Theodore von Kármán. In his book "The Wind and Beyond," Kármán says that above 57 miles (92 kilometers) in altitude, "there is no longer any air to contribute lift." The World Air Sports Federation has taken this line 5 miles (8 kilometers) higher to mark the spot where space begins.

Read more: The space between Earth and the moon is mind-boggling. This graphic reveals just how big it is — and what's out there.

"I think that one of the things that [Virgin Galactic] will have to figure out, is how to get above the Kármán line. We fly to 106 kilometers" or 66 miles, Bezos said.

By "we" Bezos was referring to Blue Origin, which has developed an autonomous, fully reusable rocket-and-space-capsule system called New Shepard.

Blue Origin's reusable New Shepard suborbital rocket launches toward space in 2016.Blue Origin

The squat rocket launches the capsule on a ballistic (up-and-down) trajectory, then returns to Earth and lands, allowing it to be refueled. Meanwhile, the sleek crew capsule continues flying upward, providing about 4 minutes of weightlessness for passengers.

Read more: SpaceX's list of competitors is growing — here are 9 futuristic rockets in the pipeline for the new space race

The reason New Shepard was designed to pierce the internationally recognized boundary of space, Bezos said, was to remove any doubts about status.

"We've always had as our mission that we wanted to fly above the Kármán line, because we didn't want there to be any asterisks next to your name about whether you're an astronaut," he said.

Bezos added that Blue Origin plans to launch its first people on New Shepard imminently.

"This is the first time I've ever been saying, 'this year,'" he said. "For a few years, I've been saying, 'next year.'"

A series of firsts for suborbital space tourism

SpaceShipTwo, or VSS Unity, lifts off the ground attached to its mothership, WhiteKnightTwo. The small rocket ship launched toward the edge of space for a second time on February 22, 2019.Virgin Galactic

A representative of Virgin Galactic did not issue a response to Bezos' comments in time for publication.

For its part, though, Branson's space tourism outfit is claiming to rack up firsts.

"Today's flight notched several additional firsts for the industry," Virgin Galactic said in its release. "The flight was the first time that a non-pilot flew on board a commercial spaceship to space, and it was the first time that a crew member floated freely without restraints in weightlessness in space onboard a commercial spaceship; it was the first time that three people flew to space on a commercial spaceship, and Dave Mackay became the first Scottish-born astronaut."

The flight also marked the company's fifth back-to-back supersonic flight of a SpaceShipTwo vehicle, which is a welcome shift for the company. (In October 2014, one of its pilots died and another was seriously injured during an in-flight breakup of the "VSS Enterprise" SpaceShipTwo vehicle.)

"Flying the same vehicle safely to space and back twice in a little over two months, while at the same time expanding the flight envelope, is testament to the unique capability we have built up," Branson said in the release.

He added: "Having Beth fly in the cabin today, starting to ensure that our customer journey is as flawless as the spaceship itself, brings a huge sense of anticipation and excitement to all of us here who are looking forward to experiencing space for ourselves. The next few months promise to be the most thrilling yet."

Jeff Bezos has been credited with rejuvenating The Washington Post since he bought the paper a little more than five years ago. Amid great angst about the future of traditional news media, he's been heralded as the ideal steward, using his billions to save the paper while leaving the editorial side alone. The top editor Marty Baron said that under Bezos the paper had enjoyed "complete independence" on the editorial side, hired 150 news staffers, and added "a lot" of engineers.

But in January, the tycoon became embroiled in scandal when sexy photos and texts he sent to his mistress were leaked to the National Enquirer.

He also got a black eye earlier this month when Amazon scrapped controversial plans for a big expansion in New York City.

Read more: Amazon decided to shut down HQ2 in New York, but advertisers see no sign of the e-commerce giant slowing down its attack on Madison Avenue Against that backdrop, we decided to ask some Post employees across the paper if the recent headlines had changed their view of Bezos. It wasn't scientific, and we granted anonymity to let people speak freely about their employer and its owner.

The Post declined to comment, and Amazon didn't respond to a request for comment.

Here's what seven Post employees said:

Bezos may not be as smart as he appeared to be

Some said they credited Bezos with saving the paper and worried what Bezos' divorce news would mean for The Post's fate. Some also were challenged to reconcile the tabloid revelations with their image of Bezos as a genius and a family man who whipped up pancakes for Post executives in his kitchen after the paper's sale.

"It's mixed. He's still the savior here. But it's awkward," one person in editorial said. "There's a sense that he was the smartest guy in the room, and wow, he goes out and does a really dumb thing."

Bezos is an obscure figure for many Post employees. He's limited his contact to its business side and rarely addressed the entire staff. He's also been portrayed as a ruthless boss at Amazon. To some, his newly exposed fallibility softened his image.

"He's flawed — it humanizes him a little," one said.

Bezos has stayed out of editorial decisions, but one question that always hangs over his ownership is how The Post can cover the world's richest man who also happens to be its owner. So the recent scandal had a silver lining of letting The Post show the world it can cover its owner as aggressively as any news outlet, one journalist there said.

After Bezos published a Medium post accusing the CEO of the Enquirer's parent company of blackmail, one called the move "gutsy" and approved of his publishing the attack on Medium and not The Post, sparing the paper an awkward situation.

Others unhappy with Bezos spotlight

Others took a harsher view. Bezos had already lost some popularity with Post employees who have demanded better pay and benefits. Shortly after he took over, the paper made big cuts in retirement benefits.

One journalist also looked poorly on the owner of a high-profile media institution becoming the story. (In his Medium post, Bezos hinted at political motivations behind the leak to the Enquirer.)

"People lost thousands of dollars," this person grumbled of the cuts to retirement benefits. "And to see him drag the paper into a political dispute, it's disturbing. The president wants to attack him — he should be quiet."

One factor that might make it easier for people to criticize Bezos is that The Post is on firmer footing than it's been in a long time. It's passed 1 million subscriptions and is growing its technology-licensing arm. It just won a prestigious Polk award and is said to be profitable.

"Things still feel pretty positive," one employee said. "It doesn't feel like we have to go to the magic Bezos well."

Another brand-safety crisis has hit YouTube, and this time advertisers think they could use it as leverage over the video platform.

On February 17, blogger Matt Watson posted a 20-minute video showing how YouTube videos featuring children included inappropriate comments that linked to pornography. By Wednesday, big brands like McDonald's, AT&T and Nestlé that ran ads alongside the videos had pulled or paused their ad spend with YouTube.

While the videos only represent a sliver of advertisers' YouTube spend, the advertisers that pulled spend are some of the biggest advertisers on the platform and make up its core, according to analytics company MediaRadar. The episode also is the latest example of how brand-safety concerns continue to plague YouTube.

This week, Google set up an hour-long conference with holding companies and a handful of its executives including Philipp Schindler, SVP and chief business officer, and YouTube's chief product officer Neal Mohan to go over the steps that it has taken to protect minors on its platform, according to one holding company exec.

The brand-safety issue comes at a critical time as agencies and YouTube are negotiating 2019 contracts. Two weeks ago, Business Insider reported that YouTube recently notified holding companies that it would stop paying for third-party brand safety fees. Tech firms like OpenSlate and Pixability provide software that allows brands to make sure that their ads only appear on a vetted group of videos.


Read more: YouTube quietly stopped paying the bill for brand safety, and a battle with agencies could be escalating

"They've been communicating heavily every day — lots of detail [about] short-term, long-term plans," the exec said. "They spent a lot of time going through the actual step-by-step process."

During the call, YouTube execs told agencies that it has shut down 400 channels and removed comments on millions of videos. Execs also detailed some longer-term changes to the platform like comment-moderation software that allows creators to control comments and updates to a strike system that YouTube uses to determine if a creator can serve ads alongside their videos.

"Any content including comments that endangers minors is abhorrent, and we have clear policies prohibiting this on YouTube," said a spokesperson for YouTube. "We took immediate action by deleting accounts and channels, reporting illegal activity to authorities and disabling comments on tens of millions of videos that include minors. There's more to be done, and we continue to work to improve and catch abuse more quickly."

YouTube execs on the call also talked about the possibility of requiring videos creators to approve comments on their videos before the comments could be posted on YouTube. However, the massive number of videos that are uploaded to YouTube makes vetting videos and their comments resource-intense. The agency exec said that YouTube is encouraging creators to "police their own feed."

"If you think about the ratio of videos to comments, the order of magnitude of reviewing comments in a pre-screen mode is just too daunting," an agency exec said.

YouTube's snafu represents a small amount of ads

The snafu may not amount to a lot in terms of advertising dollars, but it has affected some of the largest spenders on the platform.

Only $8,000 in advertising was spent on the videos in question in the past two months, according to a knowledgable source.

The agency exec said a couple of its clients had only spent an average of $3 advertising on the videos in question since the beginning of January.

"It's very limited exposure. That doesn't change the concern about the content and the comments," the exec said. "The underlying issue is that these things aren't happening periodically. It's the nature of the beast."

MediaRadar crunched data for seven companies that have pulled their ads this week. They include YouTube's biggest advertisers: Disney, AT&T, Epic Games, McDonald's, Nestlé, Clorox and Hasbro. The data tracks ad spend between January and February 17, when Watson posted the video.

Five of the seven companies spent up to 70% less on the platform versus a year ago, according to MediaRadar. Nestlé was the only one of the seven that pulled its spend during last year's issue, though the company came back two weeks later.

In other words, the impact of this episode on YouTube could be large if those brands' actions are any indication.

MediaRadar said that these advertisers typically buy ads on YouTube's homepage and on popular channels like The Ellen Show and WWE.

"It will be interesting to see how many of these advertisers truly discontinue their advertising with YouTube," said Todd Krizelman, CEO and co-founder of MediaRadar. "This is not YouTube's first brush with brand safety concerns, and in previous cases, the majority of advertisers returned to the platform within weeks of the breach."

Agencies could gain leverage with YouTube

For more than a year, YouTube reimbursed agencies who used third parties' brand safety protection in the form of refunds or credit. In December, YouTube notified agencies that it would stop picking up the bill in 2019.

Agency sources said YouTube believed it made significant progress in cleaning up its platform in the two years since brand-safety issues started getting a lot of marketers' attention. YouTube also added new ad-tech vendors like DoubleVerify and Integral Ad Science to its platform in recent months and sources speculated that YouTube didn't want to look like it favored one vendor over another.

Deals are still being negotiated and the agency exec said advertisers could use the latest outcry over brand safety to get YouTube to pick up the brand safety cost again.

"Unfortunate events like this demonstrate the need for greater third party oversight — no question," the source said. "It's hard to imagine that this would not give us more leverage."

Not all brands are pulling spend

Not all brands are pulling away from YouTube. Burger King, Johnson & Johnson, and Anheuser-Busch InBev told Business Insider they are sticking with the platform.

While brand safety is important to Burger King, it is satisfied with YouTube's efforts to tackle the issue, Burger King's CMO Fernando Machado told Business Insider.

YouTube dedicated 10,000 employees across Google to vet videos, rolled out tools that catch questionable content through artificial intelligence, and significantly raised the requirements for creators to make money from their videos.

"The most important part is that they seem to be committed to solving the problem," Machado said.

Some of the most popular smartphone apps are uploading to Facebook highly personal information about their users, including their blood pressure and weight, what house listings they were looking at, and whether they were menstruating or pregnant, without users' explicit knowledge or consent, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

The Journal found that at least 11 apps were transferring such sensitive data to Facebook; they included Flo Health's Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker, Move's Realtor.com, and Instant Heart Rate: HR Monitor. All of the apps named by the Journal — and thousands of others besides — include code from Facebook that allow their developers to track how people are using them and use that information to target ads at them.

The apps are transferring data to Facebook regardless of whether the individual users log into the app via the social network or are even members of it, The Journal reported. None of them gave users an obvious way to block Facebook from getting their data, according to the story. Many of them didn't explicitly disclose to users what information they were sharing with Facebook, according to the report.

The practices may put the developers and Facebook in trouble with regulators in the United States and Europe. Following The Journal's report, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo reportedly ordered an investigation into apps sharing sensitive information with Facebook.

That may only be the start. The Federal Trade Commission has in the past cracked down on companies whose actual privacy practices differed significantly from what they disclosed to their users. Meanwhile, Europe's new General Data Protection Regulation typically requires companies to gain users' explicit consent before collecting or sharing their personal data.

The company is already under regulatory scrutiny after a series of mishaps that came to light last year, including the leak of records to Cambridge Analytica, the data firm linked to President Trump. The Journal's report comes as the company is reportedly negotiating with the FTC over the size of a fine related to that massive data leak.

Read this:Facebook is reportedly considering paying a record multibillion-dollar fine to settle the FTC's investigation into its privacy practices

Facebook's terms of service require developers that use its code to make clear what information they are sharing with the social network, company spokeswoman Nissa Anklesaria told Business Insider. They also bar app makers from sharing certain sensitive data with Facebook. Facebook looks for and deletes such data when the company finds it, she said.

But generally, the practice of apps sharing data with Facebook for the purpose of advertising to users is nothing unusual or untoward, Anklesaria said.

"Sharing information across apps on your iPhone or Android device is how mobile advertising works and is industry standard practice," she said.

Several of the developers mentioned in The Journal's report changed their privacy policies or data sharing practices after being contacted by the newspaper. For example, BetterMe, maker of BetterMe: Weight Loss Workouts, updated its privacy policy to make more explicit what information it shares with Facebook and why.