Quantcast
Channel: Business Insider
Browsing All 47773 Browse Latest View Live
Mark channel Not-Safe-For-Work? cancel confirm NSFW Votes: (0 votes)
Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel.
0

Gucci is selling a rubber ice bucket that costs as much as 1,000 bags of ice

0
0

gucci rubber tote bag

  • Gucci has launched a $949 (£675) rubber tote bag that would double up as a great ice bucket.
  • It has the same value as almost 1,000 bags of ice.
  • It's made of 100% rubber.


Have you ever looked disdainfully at your lacklustre ice bucket, wishing it could add a little pizzazz to the place?

Well, Gucci is here to take your money.

The famous Italian fashion house has launched a $949 (£675) rubber tote bag that could easily double up as a handsome ice bucket on those hot summer months.

The bag, which Farfetch says bridges "nostalgic references from the seventies and eighties with versatile and functional designs," is 100% rubber and made in Italy. 

gucci tote bag

It's perfect for chilling bottles of Champagne, or even carrying around your collection of Supreme bricks.

At the bottom of the bag you can see the words: "Guccification," "Sine Amore Nihil," "Summer MMXVII," and "XXV" — each phrase apparently holds special significance to Gucci, but we're not entirely sure why.

gucci rubber tote bag

SEE ALSO: Gucci models carried replicas of their own heads in a terrifying runway show — and people are freaking out

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Facebook can still track you even if you delete your account — here's how to stop it

25 under-the-radar places in Latin America to visit in your lifetime, according to the world’s top travel experts

0
0

san blas panama

From the darkest depths of Peru to the crystal blue underground cenotes of Mexico, there is something incredibly alluring about Latin America.

However, the best off-the-beaten-track destinations are usually discovered by word of mouth, often among travellers on the road from hostel bunkbeds or over a local beer.

We’ve done the hard work for you and asked some of the world's most respected travel experts — including those in the know at the likes of Lonely Planet and Secret Escapes, travel bloggers, and frequent travellers in the region — for their favourite under-the-radar destinations in South and Central America, and they didn't disappoint.

Fom exploring untouched paradise on lesser-known islands to boarding down an active volcano, surfing off the northern coast of Nicaragua, and getting to know a sea lion colony in Uruguay, keep scrolling for your ultimate Latin America travel bucketlist.

SEE ALSO: 33 things I wish I'd known before going to Rio Carnival

Go swimming and caving in the natural pools in Semuc Champey, Guatemala.

Alicia Johnson, Lonely Planet's destination editor for Central America and the Caribbean, recommends visiting the turquoise pools of Semuc Champey deep in the isolated jungle of Guatemala.

"You're going to have to work to see what some view as the most beautiful spot in the whole country. [It's] famed for its great 300m-long natural limestone bridge, on top of which is a stepped series of pools with cool, flowing river water good for swimming. This bit of paradise is difficult to reach, but the sheer perfection of the pools, ranging from turquoise to emerald-green, make it worth it."



Check out the white sand dunes and rainwater lagoons at Parque Nacional Dos Lençóis Maranhenses, Brazil.

Bailey Freeman, Lonely Planet's destination editor for South America, suggests Brazil's Lençóis Maranhenses national park.

"This 1,500km national park is a seemingly extraterrestrial landscape of rolling white sand dunes punctuated with aquamarine pools. Make your trip to the park between March and September, when the vistas are at their most impressive."



Check out the colonial villages and local markets in Sacred Valley, Peru.

Two of our travel expert sources pinpointed Sacred Valley as a must-see in Peru. 

Experts at HolidayPirates said: "If you're looking for somewhere a little more off-the-beaten-track than the usual tourist haunts of Peru, then be sure to head to the Sacred Valley, a 70-mile narrow strip of land that connects the capital Cusco to the renowned Machu Picchu and is filled with beautiful colonial villages and amazing local markets."

James Asquith, who became the youngest person to visit all 196 countries and is the founder of travel app Holiday Swap, said: "Most tourists make their way to Cusco to see the incredibly famous Machu Picchu, and it is a spectacular sight, however, don't overlook the nearby Sacred Valley, and extend your trip to explore the Andes mountains.

"It is much more tranquil here than Machu Picchu, but with scenery to rival the nearby famous ruins."



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

I can't bring myself to break up with Facebook - and it's because I used the login to sign into all of my other accounts (FB)

0
0

Divorce season 2

  • Amidst the #deletefacebook furor, I decided now was as good a time as any to delete my ghost town of a Facebook account.
  • Upon figuring out how best to go about deleting it, I found 72 apps linked to the account, some of whose content I shudder to imagine disappearing forever. 
  • It made me realize how I'm sentenced to use Facebook until there's some way to safely detach my accounts.


I feel like my relationship with Facebook has run its course — a sentiment that seems to be echoed by many others, if the "#DeleteFacebook" movement is anything to go by.

I rarely log onto the Facebook account that I created five years ago. Except for major life updates, like moving or new employment, there's not much else I have a strong desire to share with my family and circle of college friends. I usually use Instagram to find out what's new with them, anyway.

My feed consists of political nonsense, bad outdated memes, and random posts made by relatives and friends of an older generation, who seem to have consistently overrun the social media platform over the past few years. I somehow missed the exact turning point where Facebook became the technological equivalent of a dad joke.

I don't need my Facebook. I don't rely upon it for my livelihood, or for business networking like some do. And I've gotten to a point where I don't want it either.

Throw in the recent scandal involving data analytics company Cambridge Analytica and the privacy violations Facebook took part in, and now seemed like a good time to call it quits with my account. 

The thing is: When I began my research on how to efficiently delete a Facebook account, I was guided to the settings section of Facebook. I soon discovered the 72 apps that are attached to my Facebook login. It slowly sank in how much of my life is tied to Facebook. And even worse was how completely unwilling I was to sever those ties and potentially lose access to information that so closely affects my day-to-day life.

Facebook is like your fingerprint — good luck explaining how it changed

The problem is that my access to each of those apps is based on my Facebook identity. But if I no longer have a Facebook identity, how will those apps know who I am?

In theory, resetting your login information for any particular app should not be very difficult, but I soon discovered that the reality is quite different: For many apps, Facebook is the equivalent of your fingerprint. And you're no more likely to convince some apps that you're still the same person— just with a different fingerprint — than you would to a person in the real world. 

 

Facebook column graphic

 

In the app hierarchy of my phone, Spotify reigns supreme. So "how to keep your Spotify after deleting Facebook" is the first tutorial I searched for. To my horror, I found posts upon posts detailing how the participants were unable to log into their Spotify accounts after deleting Facebook. 

I thought of all the playlists I'd curated over the course of the last five years: one for that time I was in Paris by myself, one for fall of 2013 during my first college semester, one random assortment of songs I just really liked, etc. Each served as its own little metaphoric time capsule that transferred me back to a different point in my life. I wasn't ready to let that go.

I followed suit with the rest of the apps, wondering what would happen to my online portfolio I built through Wix, all of my Pinterest boards, the reviews Airbnb-ers had given me over the years, my Instagram stream that dates back to 2013, and my access to the online network of my alma mater. 

And on a less significant level, I'd lose access to Hinge, my favorite dating app to waste time on, since the platform populates matches with mutual Facebook friends. 

I know why I'd used Facebook to log into all these things: It was quick, convenient and secure, or so I thought. But I didn't foresee the consequences of linking so many applications to one account.  

With Facebook currently under a magnifying glass, I'm expecting, or hoping, that every developer creates a more seamless detachment process for users who delete the Facebook account but want to keep data and access to the apps that are connected to it.

Until then, my hands are tied. And I hate it.

SEE ALSO: If Zuck wants us to take Facebook's response to the Cambridge Analytica scandal seriously, he should try saying 'sorry'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Neo-Nazi groups let a journalist in their meetings and rallies — here's what he saw

'Birth of a Nation' director and star Nate Parker attempts to mount a comeback with a new project about a hero cop

0
0

Nate Parker Frederick M Brown Getty

  • Nate Parker has signed on to direct a police drama about a real-life hero LAPD detective.
  • This is his follow-up to his directorial debut, "The Birth of a Nation," which after winning the grand prize at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival was derailed when a 1999 rape trail against the actor-director resurfaced.

Nate Parker has laid low since a 1999 rape trail involving him — and subsequent suicide of his accuser— resurfaced leading up to his 2016 directorial debut, "The Birth of a Nation," which didn't just derail the movie's success but its award season hopes.

Now the actor-director is attempting a comeback. It was announced on Friday that Parker has signed on to direct the police drama, "Black & Blue," according to Deadline.

The movie looks at the career of Los Angeles Police Department detective Ralph Waddy, who was involved in some of the most notorious moments in Los Angeles, including the Watts riots, Robert Kennedy's assassination, and the Manson Murders at actress Sharon Tate's house.

This follows revelations in February that Parker was casting a web series titled "Baselines" about a Los Angeles family driven to protect their son, a talented basketball player, from the dangers of inner-city life.

Parker's directorial debut, "The Birth of a Nation," won the grand jury prize at the 2016 Sundance Film Festival and was destined for major award season consideration as the movie was bought at the festival by Fox Searchlight for $17.5 million. But Parker faced a media firestorm after a 17-year-old rape case from his his time attending Penn State University resurfaced before the movie's theatrical release.

The woman who alleged Parker and "Birth of a Nation" co-writer Jean Celestin assaulted her, committed suicide in 2012. Parker was acquitted in the case and has maintained that he was unjustly charged.

SEE ALSO: Taylor Swift shared a rare political statement in support of gun control

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

This is why our phones are making us miserable: happiness isn't the same thing as pleasure, and our brain knows it

0
0

Dopamine and serotonin brains only top image

  • The brain chemical dopamine, associated with reward and motivation, is very different from serotonin, associated with contentment and true happiness.
  • You can't get contentment from an app or from a purchase, but you can click or buy your way to a whole lot of reward and pleasure.
  • The language difference between "happiness" and "pleasure" is subtle, but the chemical difference is huge. These chemicals are the reason why our phones can feel addictive.
  • This is an installment of Business Insider's "Your Brain on Apps" series that investigates how addictive apps can influence behavior.


People trying to sell you a new car, a fancy phone, or a bigger home might like you to believe that money can buy a whole lot of happiness. But your brain knows that's not true. Money can buy you pleasure, but happiness has to come from somewhere else. 

If you're confused between happiness and pleasure, you're not alone. After all, we've been conditioned to believe that happiness comes from buying that new thing, satisfying that food craving or being in on the latest trend.

Even the dictionaries and search engines get a little confused: If you Google "pleasure" the first definition that pops up is "a feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment." 

But scientists who study hormones say our brains can tell the difference between a quick rush of pleasure and the long-lasting contentment that is the true definition of happiness. And it's a big one. 

"If you've been told your entire life that pleasure is happiness, then, you know, you're screwed," Robert Lustig says.

Lustig's an endocrinologist, and author of "The Hacking of the American Mind: The science behind the corporate takeover of our bodies and brains." He was one of the first to study the effects of refined sugar consumption on kids, and now he's worried that tech could be working on our brains in similar, near-addictive ways. He says tech is not quite like a drug, but it feeds a potentially dangerous system of motivations and rewards in our brain, leaving us craving another hit.

"Technology is a dopamine stimulator," Lustig told Business Insider. "Anything that causes dopamine to rise has, as its end point, addiction."

That's not to say that tech works on our brains exactly like an alcohol or drug problem, because with tech, as far as we know, there are no visceral withdrawal symptoms, like jitteriness or headaches, if you turn off your phone.

Still, there is a dependence we've developed to our phones that is different from a feeling of contentment or calm peace.

That buzzing brick in your pocket? It's fueling the release of more stress hormones, and our brain's pleasure and reward-related chemical, dopamine.

It turns out that dopamine touches very different areas of our brain then serotonin, which we know is involved in decreasing anxiety and counteracting depression. Serotonin is so closely related to happiness that it's one of the key ingredients in many antidepressant drugs.

Take a look at the difference between how happiness-related serotonin and addiction-related dopamine circulate in the brain: 

How dopamine and serotonin circulate differently in the brain

As you can see in the above graphic, serotonin spreads happiness signals out to many different parts of the brain, touching at least 14 different receptors. Scientists like Lustig think this is part of the reason why happiness can be felt in so many different ways: sensations of joy, love and contentment might be sparked during different interactions serotonin has with receptors in different parts of the brain.

Dopamine, on the other hand, only has five brain receptors. The neurotransmitter interacts with those receptors to fuel feelings of desire and motivation. Dopamine is involved in regulating many things in our brains: rewards, motivation, pleasure, there's even some evidence it's involved in healthy hallucinations. But because it fuels a cycle of motivation and reward, it will never make us truly happy or content, feeling like we have enough and we are enough.

Instead, our phones have been built to leave us always craving more. They're not inherently bad, but it is something that we should all be aware of.

The only antidote? To put away our phones, limit the alerts they send us and share time with others, instead of constantly staring at our screens.

SEE ALSO: This is what your smartphone is doing to your brain — and it isn't good

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens to your brain when you check your phone all the time

The fired directors of 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' reveal the credit they will be taking on the movie

0
0

Phil Lord Chris Miller Getty final

  • Directors Chris Miller and Phil Lord said they will be taking executive producer credits on "Solo: A Star Wars Story."
  • The duo were originally the directors on the project but were fired during production over creative differences with Lucasfilm head Kathleen Kennedy.
  • Ron Howard, who took over from Miller and Lord, will have the sole director credit.


The fired directors of "Solo: A Star Wars Story," Phil Lord and Chris Miller, have finally revealed the credit they will be taking on the movie.

While speaking at the third annual GLAS Animation Festival on Friday, Lord and Miller indicated they will take executive producer credits and not be sharing a director credit with their replacement Ron Howard, according to Variety.

howard final Real Ron Howard “We were really proud of the many contributions we made to that film,” Miller told the audience, according to the trade. “In light of the creative differences, we elected to take an executive producer credit.”

Howard took over the Han Solo origin story from Lord and Miller in June of last year after Lucasfilm president, Kathleen Kennedy, fired the duo over creative differences. Since then it's been a mystery how Lord and Miller would be credited, though it became more and more unlikely the two would be listed as directors as it was reported Howard reshot 80% of the movie once he took over.

However, Howard told Entertainment Weekly "Phil and Chris' fingerprints are all over the movie."

"Solo: A Star Wars Story," opens in theaters May 25.

 

SEE ALSO: Jeff Goldblum tells us about acting over the phone with Wes Anderson for "Isle of Dogs" — and why thinks his best performance is yet to come

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

29 great Netflix shows you might have missed but should definitely watch

0
0

Glow Erica Parise Netflix finalEven if you love Netflix, you probably haven't seen some of its best shows. 

For many original series Netflix has put out, the company's marketing has been either non-existent or subtle, allowing its viewers to determine what becomes a hit. In 2016, "Stranger Things" quietly became a phenomenon through word of mouth, with no major advertisements before it made its debut on the streaming service. 

Now, Netflix is starting to decide what it thinks will be the next big show. 

In January, Netflix announced that in 2018, it would increase its marketing budget by 50% to $2 billion. So that's why you definitely didn't miss "Altered Carbon," the first freshman series Netflix put major marketing behind.

But there are a bunch of other shows that might have slipped under your radar, and we collected 29 of our favorites.

Here's all the Netflix original shows you might have overlooked (along with their Rotten Tomatoes score and why you should watch):

SEE ALSO: Why you should be watching Netflix's 'Santa Clarita Diet,' a comedy where Drew Barrymore eats people

"Santa Clarita Diet" — two seasons (2017-present)

Critic score: 75%

Netflix description: "They're ordinary husband and wife Realtors until she undergoes a dramatic change that sends them down a road of death and destruction. In a good way."

Why you should watch it: Drew Barrymore eats people, and her chemistry with Timothy Olyphant ("Deadwood," "Justified") is sparkling. It's also a clever satire of suburban life. 



"Bloodline" — three seasons (2014-2017)

Critic score: 57%

Netflix description: "When the black sheep son of a respected family threatens to expose dark secrets from their past, sibling loyalties are put to the test."

Why you should watch it: The cast, from Kyle Chandler to Linda Cardellini to Ben Mendelsohn, brings life to the otherwise predictable family drama. 



"Marvel's The Punisher" — one season (2017)

Critic score: 63%

Netflix description: "A former Marine out to punish the criminals responsible for his family's murder finds himself ensnared in a military conspiracy."

Why you should watch it: It's the most ambitious Marvel Netflix show. 



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

6 ways life is easier for millennials than it was for their parents

0
0

work coworkers

  • Millennials are generally defined as people born between 1981 and 1996.
  • In some ways, their lives are easier than things were for their parents at the same age.
  • Online dating can lead to stronger relationships; you don't need a traditional classroom to learn; and work/life balance is increasingly possible.


It's easy for millennials to complain that their lives are worse than their parents' and grandparents' were at the same age.

And in some ways, they're right.

But we're not letting millennials— the generation born between 1981 and 1996 — off the hook so easily. In many ways, life is better for young people today than it was 30 or 60 years ago. Relationships, health, and education have all been transformed.

Below, we've listed six key reasons why the millennial life is a relative breeze.

SEE ALSO: 7 ways life is harder for millennials than it was for their parents

Millennials can stay in touch with family and friends on social media

There's a lot of griping out there about how social media is ruining our attention spans, our ability to sit still, our self-esteem, and our lives in general.

But one of its most basic functions is to keep us connected to people we might otherwise lose touch with — and that's pretty handy. Your mom might be lucky if she bumps into her old college roommate on the street one day, but you can message yours anytime, or even just "like" the person's photos.

A 2015 study, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, found that "passive" Facebook use— think browsing your newsfeed — can indeed undermine well-being. But "active" Facebook use — think posting status updates and commenting on other people's photos — can make us feel better.



Millennials are meeting their partners online — and the resulting relationships might be stronger

Online dating just wasn't an option when Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers were younger.

But a growing body of research suggests that people who meet online have more satisfying relationships, are less likely to get divorced, and in fact get married more quickly than couples who meet IRL.

That's likely because people who sign up for dating services may be more interested in a relationship than say, people at a bar who aren't specifically there to meet a serious partner. It's now easier than ever to find those relationship-oriented people.

To be sure, having so many options to choose from can be overwhelming. But having no options— like you might if you lived in a small town 30 years ago — can be even more distressing.

 

 



Millennials have more options around remote and flexible work

Digital technology is a double-edged sword when it comes to the workplace. On the one hand, it's possible to be "always on," signing back into Slack or your work email after you get home.

On the other hand, today's young professionals can use this technology to their advantage. Companies like Remote Year are creating "digital nomads," or people who work wherever and whenever, rarely setting foot in a traditional office.

As Business Insider's Áine Cain reported, even major companies like Amazon, Dell, and Hilton allow telecommuting for some positions. That can help employees create better work-life balance, especially if they're caring for kids or other family members.

This isn't an opportunity most Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers ever had.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

18 photos that show why you should never trust the pictures hotels post online

0
0

Sofitel Los Angeles

  • Hotels and resorts tend to publish photos of their biggest hotel rooms and empty, paradise-like pools.
  • Review sites such as Yelp and Foursquare can tell a different — and sometimes more accurate — account of what it's like to stay at a hotel.
  • From London to Las Vegas, here are some of the most shocking fantasy vs. reality photos.

 

When booking a hotel for your next trip, you might think you know what you're getting by looking at the hotel's website and social media.

But traveler beware — every company wants to put their best face forward.

From making hotel rooms and swimming pools look bigger than they actually are, to adding props to a hotel room during a photo shoot, there are a few photography tricks that can deceive the eye. In many cases, they're fooling the potential customer and making the space look a whole lot more glamorous than it actually is.

Review sites such as Yelp and Foursquare can sometimes be a more reliable source of what a hotel room or pool might be like. Whether it's smaller, more cramped, crowded, or dimly lit, the reviewers have little reason to try to make a room or accommodation something that it's not.

Below, a collection of photos from hotels that have posted some wonderful photos of their space — but didn't quite accurately capture what it might be like during a typical stay.

SEE ALSO: Millennial brides dream of different weddings from their parents — and two Wharton grads want to help them get it

DON'T MISS: 25 of the best luxury hotels around the world right now

What you expect: From this view the pool at the Blue Moon Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida, looks like it potentially could be pretty large and inviting.



What you get: Once you see the whole thing, its size might not suffice.



What you expect: The Hotel Gran Palace in Santiago, Chile, looks like a spacious, warm room.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

People are obsessed with Costco's free samples — but it's actually a brilliant business strategy (COST)

0
0

Costco samples

  • Costco famously offers shoppers free samples of products in its stores. 
  • Some shoppers brag on social media that it's their main reason for visiting the store. 
  • While it might seem generous, those samples can actually lead to sales for the company.

Costco fans wax lyrical about its free samples, which, if you're crafty enough, can even be combined to be an entire meal.

While some customers might think that Costco is just doing them a favor by offering them free snacks, there's actually a solid business strategy behind it.

By offering free samples, Costco makes the shopping experience in its stores more appealing and its customers more loyal.

 

Costco

While some customers may claim to visit the store only for its samples, once they're in the store, they're more likely to buy things.

It's also a way for Costco to encourage customers to try new products that they otherwise wouldn't have, and to spark cravings  — once you have a nibble of chocolate, for example, you're likely to want more. 

Plus, as its so-called "demonstrations" are staffed, customers tend to feel more of a pressure to buy the product.

Costco is mum on how much this marketing ploy actually boosts sales. The company did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

However, in other stores, free samples have been known to boost sales by as much as 2,000%. 

Costco outsources the sampling process to other companies, including Club Demonstration Services, which provides staff and oversees the process. A former executive of the company told The Atlantic in 2014 that the company's samples of frozen pizza helped boost sales of that pizza product by 600% at national chains. 

"When we compare it to other in-store mediums … in-store product demonstration has the highest [sales] lift,” former executive Giovanni DeMeo told The Atlantic.

SEE ALSO: Costco's cheap gas gives it a huge advantage over Sam's Club and BJ's — here's why members are crazy about it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The rise and fall of Hooters Air — the airline that lost the 'breastaurant' $40 million

'Black Panther' is now the highest domestic grossing superhero movie of all-time — and it did it in just 36 days (DIS)

0
0

black panther poster

  • By Saturday night, "Black Panther" will become the highest-grossing superhero movie of all-time at the domestic box office.
  • It will have surpassed previous record-holder, 2012's "The Avengers" ($623.2 million).
  • However, counting inflation, "The Avengers" still is the top superhero movie with a domestic gross of over $700 million.

By Saturday night, "Black Panther" will be the highest-grossing superhero movie of all-time at the domestic box office, with an estimated total of over $630.5 million by the time the weekend's over. It surpasses the previous title holder, 2012's "The Avenger" ($623.2 million).

The incredible feat by the movie is even more astounding by the fact that it was done in only 36 days.

And with a $1.2 billion worldwide gross, the movie is inching closer to the top 10 all-time (currently sitting in 14th place just behind "Iron Man 3" with $1.214 billion).

Now, none of this is counting inflation. When going down that road, "Black Panther" still has a little more work to do.

The Disney/Marvel box-office sensation will likely finally lose its number one spot at the domestic box office to newcomer "Pacific Rim: Uprising." 

And "Black Panther" is in fourth place for all-time superhero domestic grosses — behind 2002's "Spider-Man" ($637.8 million), 2008's "The Dark Knight" ($683.5 million), and "The Avengers" ($705.7 million).

Nice company to be in, and with the movie still having a month (maybe two) in theaters, who knows where it will end up on this list of titans. 

More "Black Panther":

SEE ALSO: Jim Carrey has taken his criticism of Trump to a new level with a sexually explicit drawing of the president

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

Jeff Goldblum tells us about acting over the phone with Wes Anderson for 'Isle of Dogs' — and why he thinks his best performance is yet to come

0
0

2x1JeffGoldblum_BI Graphics Shayanne Gal Getty

  • Legendary actor Jeff Goldblum talked to Business Insider about voicing a character in the stop-motion animated movie, "Isle of Dogs," which marks his third time working with director Wes Anderson.
  • Goldblum also opened up about why he believes he still hasn't delivered his career-best work yet.


It kind of makes sense that one of the most unique directors working today would want to work with one of the most unique actors.

“Isle of Dogs” (in select theaters Friday) marks the third time Wes Anderson has used Jeff Goldblum to masterful perfection. In “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” (2004), he had Goldblum play Bill Murray’s nemesis with the incredible charm that has become one of Goldblum’s memorable on-screen traits. Ten years later in “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014), Anderson gave him a very different role as an attorney who gets in over his head. And now with the stop-motion animated “Isle of Dogs,” Goldblum voices the dog Duke, who along with his canine friends helps a boy trying to track down his lost dog (Duke also loves to gossip whenever possible).

Working with Anderson is just the latest achievement for the legendary actor, who has literally done it all on screen — from playing a fly (“The Fly”), to saving the world (“Independence Day”), to running from dinosaurs (“Jurassic Park”), to even getting in on the Marvel craze (“Thor: Ragnarok”).

Goldblum talked to Business Insider about working once again with Anderson, the movie from his past he doesn’t mind watching if it’s on TV, why he loved his wardrobe in “Buckaroo Banzai,” and why he thinks he’s just on the threshold of doing his all-time best work.

Jason Guerrasio: I’ve heard that you did all your lines for “Isle of Dogs” over the phone, is that true?

Jeff Goldblum: Yes. Well, Wes was on the phone, I was in a recording studio in Los Angeles because schedule-wise I wasn't able to join Bill Murray and Bob Balaban and Ed Norton and Bryan Cranston, who were all together in a New York Studio. So I had to do this long distance, which I loved because I was sort of able to have Wes just to myself. He's a wonderful actor's director.

Guerrasio: If you did do it over the phone it wouldn't have been a first because Ryan Reynolds did a few lines over the phone for "Deadpool" that were needed during post. Same with Will Arnett for "Lego Batman Movie."

Goldblum: Well, these days I guess the technology is such that you can record something over the phone and tweak it into something very presentable.

Guerrasio: So it is safe to say this was the easiest movie you've done?

Goldblum: [Laughs] Well, there was no getting up every day early. It was short. But I'm working with Wes, even if it's a couple of hours over the phone, I thought about it as much as I could and tried to put as much into it as I could.

Guerrasio: What kind of direction did you want from him? Did you want visuals to prep?

Goldblum: Well, I'll take anything I can get. But this is my third movie with him, so you feel safe and anything he wanted to give me was enough. But originally he gave me the script and some photographs, some drawings that were the inspiration. And that was all. We didn't talk about the overall message and themes of the movie because he doesn't need to. We just talked about the character. But now that I've seen it a few times I start to go, wow, I guess I didn't need to know it but I'm so struck by the theme of us dogs being so committed and devoted to this kid.  

Guerrasio: Was what you saw on screen completely different from what you imagined it would be when you were recording the lines?

Goldblum: While I was preparing for it I was thinking, “How can I make this good?” I spent time looking at my dog, and a little bit more, and a little bit more. But having seen it now it was amazing and what these stop-motion animators have done. Not only are they blocking the scene and other things we didn't have to think about doing, but every line is accompanied by the correct depiction of what we're feeling, a subtle naturalistic performance.

Guerrasio: It sounds like a fun gig. A couple of hours and then hand it over to these guys who have to spend years crafting it.

Goldblum: Could you imagine? [Laughs] I do a little voice for a few hours and they work for three years.

Guerrasio: Now let's go to the other side of the spectrum. At this point in your career, are you still interested in doing a role that's very costume heavy, like "The Fly," having to spend hours and hours in a chair before shooting.

the flyGoldblum: I’m nothing if not a hard worker and if it's worth it. These days I'm as picky as ever and I have somehow the freedom to pick and I wouldn't work so hard just for the novelty of having a job, it would have to be with people I'm excited about and a story and a character I'm excited about. But they're around so yeah, I would jump into anything. 

Guerrasio: I’m sure you get many offers to do many things, is it nice to have the freedom to be selective and not have to worry about where the next job is coming?

Goldblum: It is nice. I like it. I feel I'm on the threshold of my best stuff. I feel I'm trying to get better and I'm getting a little better all the time, and I seem to be getting a variety of things. I have “Jurassic World" coming up, and the Jodie Foster movie called “Hotel Artemis,” a very different character for me. And I just did a movie called “The Mountain” with Rick Alverson, he's the director who did “Entertainment” and “The Comedy.”

Guerrasio: Very different projects and roles. You have a career full of them. But what's the movie of yours you'll stop everything and watch a little if it comes on TV?

Goldblum: It's funny, I watch them when they first come out because I'm curious what we did, but I'm critical of my early stuff. Like I said, I'm trying to improve. But let me see, let me see, what comes on that I really like? Well, Wes' movies. Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. IIIII dddooooonnnn'ttt kknnnoooow — I guess "The Fly" if it comes on. I'll watch a moment of that.

Guerrasio: Let me give you mine. I love you in “The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension.

Goldblum: Thank you.

Guerrasio: Do you get that one a lot?

Goldblum: Well, yes, people come up to me and say that. I like that movie. I actually watched it again because I did an interview about cult movies. I was very happy to see it again. I like that movie.

Guerrasio: I love the scene where your character, Dr. Sidney "New Jersey" Zweibel, is introduced. Wearing that incredible Western get up.

Goldblum: Well, like I say in that scene, "Geez, I thought we were going to go on the road," or something like that.

Guerrasio: He thought he was going to play with Buckaroo's band.

Goldblum: Yeah. He wasn't ready for what was about to happen. They had a very good costume person. And I was in “Silverado,” but I didn't have anything like woolly chaps and a great big hat. 

Guerrasio: It's an amazing look.

Goldblum: Yeah. I liked it.

Guerrasio: Now you were still coming up in the business at the time that movie came out. A sequel was teased in the end credits, did you think you were in a franchise? You probably thought you were going to at least get another paycheck playing this character.

Goldblum: Well, I think [director] W.D. Richter and Earl Mac Rauch, who wrote it, they had a lot up their sleeve. They had more things to show. I think it just didn't do well enough in theaters. But I've never been particularly careerist and I'm no kind of business man, I've always done this as a wild-hearted romantic creative adventure and I was plenty satisfied with what we'd done with that movie. I don't think I even paid attention to how it did. In those days, in fact, I don't even think there were opening weekend box office news like it is now. I don't think franchise was a term used yet. But no, I don't think I counted on anything past that movie. [Laughs

SEE ALSO: How "Isle of Dogs" stacks up against Wes Andersons' 8 other movies

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

Paul McCartney participates in the 'March for Our Lives' in New York City in honor of John Lennon

0
0

Paul McCartney CNN Twitter

  • Musician Paul McCartney attended the "March for Our Lives" rally in New York City on Saturday.
  • He wore a shirt that read "We can end gun violence" and told CNN, "one of my best friends was killed in gun violence right around here."
  • He was referring to his Beatles bandmate John Lennon, who was shot and killed near Central Park in 1980.

Legendary musician Paul McCartney took part in the "March for Our Lives" rally in New York City on Saturday, and was spotted not too far from where his former Beatles bandmate, John Lennon, was the killed due to gun violence in 1980.

As McCartney sported a shirt that read "We can end gun violence," CNN correspondent Jason Carroll asked him if he believed change could occur through legislation.

"I don't know," McCartney said. "But this is what we can do, so I'm here to do it."

"One of my best friends was killed in gun violence right around here," McCartney added, referring to Lennon. "So it's important to me."

Here's McCartney speaking to CNN:

On December 8, 1980, Lennon and his wife Yoko Ono, were walking to their apartment near Central Park after exiting a limo when Lennon was shot multiple times in the back at close range by lone gunman Mark David Chapman.

Lennon was rushed to the nearby Roosevelt Hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival. Chapman was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.

SEE ALSO: Patriots lend team plane to Parkland students and families for trip to DC for "March for Our Lives" rally

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

How 'Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle' went from a punchline to one of Sony's biggest box-office hits ever (SNE)

0
0

jumanji welcome to the jungle 2 sony final

  • The internet had a field day in 2015 when Sony officially announced it was making a sequel to the hit 1995 movie "Jumanji."
  • But the joke's on the internet critics: The movie, powered by Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart, earned close to $1 billion globally at the box office.
  • The film's director, Jake Kasdan, explained to Business Insider how he pulled off one of the biggest surprise hits in recent memory.

Things did not start off well for the sequel to "Jumanji."

Twenty years after the 1995 hit movie — which starred Robin Williams as a man who, after decades of being trapped inside a magical board game, is finally released to complete it with two kids — Sony announced in 2015 that it was going to dust off the property and reboot it.

The internet was not happy.

"It was like, 'You're ruining my childhood!'" Jake Kasdan, the director of "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle," recalled when Business Insider asked whether he was aware of the backlash.

Following the Sony announcement, social media was flooded with negative reactions, the consensus being that a "Jumanji" reboot would tarnish the original's legacy and that the sequel was just the latest example of Hollywood running out of new ideas:

And things didn't get any better for the movie when, after the screenwriter Chris McKenna ("Spider-Man: Homecoming") was tasked with coming up with a new take on the movie, three more screenwriters came on board to give it a crack. The release date was also changed three times, eventually settling on December 20, the Wednesday after "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" would hit theaters.

These are not good signs for a movie.

But in one of the most miraculous turnarounds for a movie in recent memory, "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle" didn't just hold its own against "The Last Jedi" in December (finishing in second place for the last week and a half of the year), it knocked the latest "Star Wars" movie off the top spot and went on an incredible three-week streak of topping the weekend domestic box office in January.

The movie went on to earn over $939 million worldwide, and over $400 million in North America — the second-best domestic performance ever for a Sony movie (just below the $403.7 million made by 2002's "Spider-Man"). All this came from just a $90 million budget.

And no one is more surprised by the movie’s global success than Kasdan.

'I loved what this could be'

Known for R-rated comedies like "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" and "Bad Teacher," Kasdan came out of nowhere to prove he could helm a PG-13 action-comedy with major stars like Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Jack Black, Karen Gillan, and Nick Jonas.

Kasdan signed on to direct a few months after Sony made the official announcement, despite being fully aware of the hatred for the idea by those on the internet.

"On some level I think there's a deserved skepticism about bringing back titles," Kasdan told Business Insider while promoting the Blu-ray/DVD release of the movie (available Tuesday). "Whether it's a sequel, reboot, relaunch, I think we've done so much of it that understandably the audience is kind of, 'Why does everything have to be like this?' But I loved what this could be."

jumanji sonyWhat the haters online didn't know was that Kasdan and the screenwriters McKenna, Erik Sommers, Scott Rosenberg, and Jeff Pinkner all contributed to what can only be described as a unicorn in the movie business — a reboot that feels new while also paying homage to the original.

The major adjustment done for the "Jumanji" sequel was shifting the board-game element to better reflect the present gaming world.

At the end of the original "Jumanji," the two main characters toss the game into a river. The sequel starts years later in 1996, with the game being found on a beach. The boy who is given it ignores what he sees as a lame board game, so the game magically morphs into a more attractive video game, sucking him into it. Years later, more kids are sucked in and become avatars played by Johnson, Hart, Black, and Gillan.

That element opened incredible possibilities for the sequel's story, as it not only could bring the Jumanji game to life but also could deliver all types of gaming aspects to the movie — from the characters' three game "lives" apiece to the jokes about their avatar's strengths and weaknesses.

Kasdan said this was all pulled off not by one single screenwriter who finally figured out how to crack the story but by collectively using all of them, like a TV writers' room.

'It wasn't like someone was dismissed and never heard from again'

Traditionally, on a movie, when a screenwriter has handed in his or her draft and been told that another scribe has been hired, that usually means the director, producers, or studio executives (or all the above) didn't like the previous screenwriter's work. But that wasn't the case on "Welcome to the Jungle."

"What made this project unusual was I continued to work with a lot of the writers," Kasdan said. "It wasn't like someone was dismissed and never heard from again. Chris McKenna came up with the idea and wrote it with Erik Sommers, and then Scott Rosenberg and Jeff Pinkner came on, and I did some work on it as well. I just liked their work, so by the end it was this unique experience where they worked with me or each other. Everyone kept a foot in."

Though Kasdan thought they had made a worthy movie, he still had no idea how it would play in test screenings. So first, he decided to play the movie for his kids.

"My kids are like 7 and 5, which is sort of younger than we ever thought about our audience, but they loved it," he said. "That made me think that the movie had a larger possible audience than I had fully realized while we made the movie. They connected so strongly to the fantasy of it, it got me excited."

And the rest is history. The movie made just under $1 billion globally at the box office and solidified the star status of Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart. And Kasdan is still trying to take it all in.

"I've been doing this long enough to realize how extraordinary this is," he said. "It's kind of a dream."

But now it's back to the drawing board for a sequel. Kasdan, Rosenberg, and Pinkner are all set to return, along with the lead cast. But can a sequel that was praised for having its own identity pull off a successful encore? Can the video game storyline be used again? Is it right to bring back the same cast?

"We're just starting to figure that out," Kasdan said. "The honest answer is you could do all different kinds of things and we're trying to figure out what feels like the most organic and fun way to continue this."

More on 'Jumanji':

SEE ALSO: 17 TV shows that will probably get canceled soon

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why 555 is always used for phone numbers on TV and in movies

Badoo's wealthy founder Andrey Andreev explained the ways he takes his obsession with food to the next level

0
0

Badoo CEO Andrey Andreev

  • Badoo CEO Andrey Andreev eats at Michelin-starred restaurants almost every day.
  • Andreev often adds his own dishes and cocktails to restaurant menus.
  • The tech CEO doesn't like to spend over 30 minutes in a restaurant if he's there for lunch — or over an hour if he's having dinner with friends.


Walk into the kitchens at Novikov in London at 11am and the wall of heat hits you as if you've stepped off a plane in a tropical country. It's the hour before lunch service begins, and large pots of water are simmering on industrial hobs, while staff are eating their own lunch before the chaos begins.

Andrey Andreev, however, wants to cook. He's in a borrowed chef jacket, and he's keen to show off his cooking skills. The chefs say the kitchen isn't ready yet, so we walk upstairs to where the restaurant has displayed a collection of freshly caught sea creatures.

Andreev taps some of the creatures, which causes them to alarmingly spring to life. It's a strange sight, watching this Russian dating app billionaire impatiently tapping on sea creatures while he waits for the kitchen to be cleaned.

Badoo CEO Andrey AndreevBusiness Insider asks for a restaurant recommendation for an upcoming trip to Paris. Andreev suggests an expensive-sounding caviar restaurant.

Forbes hasn't estimated this writer's net worth at $1.5 billion (£1 billion), as it has done for Andreev, so I decide to give it a miss.

For many technology CEOs, food is often an afterthought, something to order from an app when they get home after a long day in the office.

But for Andreev, food is perhaps his biggest passion. In fact, it's so important to him that he visits some of the most expensive restaurants in London nearly every day, and has introduced his own recipes at many of them.

He doesn't like to spend over 30 minutes in a restaurant during lunchtime

Andrey Andreev doesn't eat in restaurants in the way that most people do. He doesn't arrive, read the menu, order some food and wine, and then relax. Instead, he prefers to call ahead so that his food is ready for the moment he walks in the door.

"The Robuchon restaurant, L'Atelier, is right next door to the office," Andreev said. "I used to come every day for lunch."

"Before I came I would call, I'd be like 'I'm five minutes [away],' so they already did some preparation. It's a gastronomic restaurant and you have a five, six, seven, eight-course menu. I ate so fast that one day I made the world record: 12 minutes. The ladies on reception were laughing about it: Faster than McDonald's!"

Badoo CEO Andrey Andreev

Andreev's regular weekday lunch is at a Michelin-starred restaurant, and he takes no longer than 30 minutes. "You spend 20 minutes, 30 minutes maximum," he said. "You get the best, the best, the best thing, and you're done."

That makes sense: Andreev runs a global dating app empire. There's the core app, Badoo, but it also owns a controlling stake in Bumble, and has revenue share deals with apps including Chappy and Blendr. So he doesn't have too much time for long working lunches.

But Andreev also likes to eat fast when he's socialising in the evenings.

"Even when I'm [with my] closest friends, and we come to any of the gastronomic places, I normally say 'sorry guys, we have 40 minutes.' They never do 40 minutes, they usually do one hour. With this one hour you can have basically the same type of things, just faster. Then you save time for something else."

Andreev likes to experiment with food — and has created custom dishes for Michelin-starred restaurants

Andreev may not spend much time actually eating in restaurants, but it's clearly his favourite hobby. He likes to experiment with the menus in Michelin-starred restaurants and introduce some of his own ideas.

The Michelin-starred L'Atelier de Joël Robuchon in Covent Garden charges £65 for a five-course lunch, and is the restaurant close to Badoo's office where Andreev used to eat daily. Andreev said that the restaurant's menu includes an onion soup that he created. He said that it came about when he was bored one weekend.

"I used to come to L'Atelier every day," Andreev said, "and Saturdays it's boring. Nothing to do. Office is closed, people do not work. I just started to spend a little bit more time [there]."

Badoo CEO Andrey Andreev

At Novikov, Andreev has designed a series of seafood dishes, including sushi with a reduced amount of rice. "I'm trying to be fit, I'm trying to avoid any carbs," Andreev said.

There's also the Bloody Andrey, his twist on the Bloody Mary cocktail. It has a cherry tomato juice base, and a tweaked mixture of spices. "I said 'OK, how about we change the base?'" Andreev said, "A few weeks later they said 'OK, let's call it Bloody Andrey because you just piss off everyone here by changing things.'"

Andreev changed so many things at Novikov that legendary chef Raymond Blanc once thought that it was his restaurant.

"Raymond Blanc was here in Novikov a couple of years ago," Andreev said. "I invited him here just to have a meal and I introduced him to Arkady Novikov, the guy who owns this place. And Raymond spent an hour and a half with me here at the table trying my gastronomic things."

"For the whole evening, he thought that this was my restaurant. I said to him, 'Raymond, it's not mine.' He said 'it looks like your restaurant.'"

We joined Andreev in the kitchens at Novikov in London

Badoo CEO Andrey Andreev

Once the kitchen downstairs at Novikov is clean, it's time for Andreev to cook some pasta and seafood. His chef jacket sits on top of his daily uniform of a white T-shirt and jeans. Chefs look on as Andreev takes command of a section of the kitchen and sets about cooking some clams.

Badoo CEO Andrey AndreevAndreev adds white wine to the clams, and then moves on to cooking some scallops, squid, and prawns to add to the pasta that a chef is cooking next to him. He's keen to explain to Business Insider each part of the process, and shows us the ingredients as he adds them to the pan.

The tech CEO looks at home here, amongst the industrial ovens and trained chefs.

Eventually, it's time to plate up. The seafood doesn't take much cooking, and Andreev leads us up the stairs and out of the heat.

Andreev started cooking at an unusually early age

Where did this passion for food come from? Andreev said he started cooking at an unusually young age.

"I was five or six and it was a time when my parents left me alone at home," Andreev said. "My parents [were] busy somewhere and something happened. I'm staying alone and I understand that I need to eat and I don't know what to do. So I called the emergency services."

"I told the lady 'sorry, I'm staying alone. I don't know what to do.' Three ladies from emergency services assisted me [with] what to do and how to make things. They told me, 'OK, do you know how to make this? Do you know how to? Do you have porridge? Do you have this?' So I opened the fridge, I’m just walking around the kitchen."

Andreev cooked a simple meal using the help of the emergency services dispatchers, he said.

Another childhood food experience that has stayed with Andreev is visiting his grandmother and her vegetable garden. "When I was a kid, my parents in the summertime always sent me to a little country house, to my grandma, who like every single grandma, produced some vegetables in a little garden. So in Russia, typically it's all sorts of cucumbers and tomatoes and other vegetables."

Andreev now has his own vegetable garden in the garden of his London house, he said.

Business Insider asked Andreev whether he'd like to own his own restaurant. Interestingly, the tech CEO likens his experimentation with food to how he runs his company.

"I love to contribute, I don't really like to personally run things. I love to contribute where things are there and there's some part missing to contribute."

"It's the same with Badoo. When you have an amazing team of, let's say amazing designers, who are doing beautiful, beautiful, beautiful mockups. [The] guys always listen to my opinion if this is nice or not nice, if we can tweak something. I'm not a designer myself, but with my direction people do a great job. So with a restaurant, [it's the] same thing."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why does Bluetooth still suck?

This is everything boxing champion Anthony Joshua eats for breakfast, lunch, and dinner

0
0

Anthony Joshua

World heavyweight boxing champion Anthony Joshua has proven he can stomach a fight — but this diet plan shows he can stomach a massive amount of food, too.

Joshua is best known for rising off from the canvas to knock Wladimir Klitschko down and out in a heavyweight fight for the ages last year.

The hulking heavyweight puts his WBA, IBF, and IBO titles on the line once again when he returns to the ring on Saturday, March 31 for a fight against WBO champion Joseph Parker in front of 80,000 screaming fans at the Principality Stadium in Wales.

To get teak-tough, Joshua — who is 6-foot-6 and 18 stone (252 pounds) — has to consume an extraordinary amount of calories in order to fuel his body for combat. But that does not mean he denies himself a sweet treat every now and then.

Here's everything Joshua likes to have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

SEE ALSO: UFC wants to sign Anthony Joshua on a $500 million contract just a week after the boxer said he wants to fight its biggest stars

DON'T MISS: Heavyweight boxing champion Anthony Joshua wants to fight in UFC one day — and he named two of its biggest fighters as potential opponents

UP NEXT: Here's what time the Anthony Joshua vs. Joseph Parker fight starts where you live — and how you can watch it live online

This is world heavyweight boxing champion Anthony Joshua. Since winning a gold medal at the 2012 Olympic Games in London, Joshua has knocked out every single one of his 20 opponents as a professional — including former champion Wladimir Klitschko, in a back-and-forth classic in April, 2017.



Four world heavyweight titles will be on the line when Joshua returns to the ring on March 31 to take on Joseph Parker, an undefeated fighter from New Zealand.



To get fighting fit, Joshua is on a very specific meal plan as he consumes twice the daily calories of a regular man. To start the day right, Joshua has a heavyweight breakfast consisting of a fruit bowl, yoghurt, two slices of toasted brown bread and five eggs (he prefers poached).

Instagram Embed:
//instagram.com/p/0HxHLgxyYY/embed
Width: 658px

Source:Sky Sports.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

I was terrified that smartphones would harm my toddler, but the latest research suggests there are benefits

0
0

Brain on Apps baby_BI-Graphics

  • Smartphones and tablets are irresistible to children, but many parents aren't sure how to responsibly manage their use.
  • Plus, scientists don't really know how using interactive screens influences brain development.
  • Meanwhile, screen-time guidelines have struggled to keep pace.
  • The good news: Experts are beginning to discover some potential benefits for kids from interactive media.
  • This is an installment of Business Insider's "Your Brain on Apps" series that investigates how addictive apps can influence behavior.

My smartphone's screen fades to black, closing a magic portal to a realm of singing and dancing beasts. "EHMAAA! EHMAAA!" screams my 21-month-old daughter, angling for her third or fourth YouTube video of Elmo, the red and cuddly high-pitched monster of "Sesame Street."

Elmo is found everywhere in our home because anything that looks like him, even my pitiful drawings of him, elicit her screams of joy. "Sesame Street" is highly rated educational content for toddlers, so my wife and I will occasionally indulge her with YouTube videos.

But I'm worried about screen time, its potential negative effects on her development, and its seemingly addictive nature. After all, many Silicon Valley parents heavily restrict screen use, including Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Did we start her on screens too young? How much exposure is too much? What distinguishes good versus bad content? Should we push books, Legos, and other real-world activities for her developing brain? Or is it a lost cause with the planet increasingly awash in touchscreens and interactive content?

"Smartphones are in 98% of homes across the US with children under 8 years of age," Rachel Barr, a developmental-psychology researcher at Georgetown University, told me.

To find answers, I spoke with Barr and other experts, reviewed some of the most popular guidelines and squared them against the latest scientific research, then factored in the realities of parenting.

While some studies suggest heavy smartphone use may stress the brains of teens and adults, what I learned about raising toddlers in the smartphone age dialed back my panic and gave me a lot of hope for my daughter's increasingly digital future.

The murky truth about 'digital addiction'

poltergeist movie 20th century fox

If you're concerned about how kids use TVs, smartphones, tablets, and other devices, you're not alone. In 2016, the nonprofit Common Sense Media surveyed 620 parents and 620 of their teenage kids in the US. About half of the teens said they "feel addicted" to their phones while 59% of the parents also felt their teens were addicted.

But how the word "addiction" is used by the public — often in a shameful, black-and-white, all-or-nothing context — and how scientists and doctors think about the problem is different.

For example, when looking at substance-use disorders, including drugs like alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, the fifth edition of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (DSM-5) couches addiction as a spectrum disorder with multiple shades of severity. Some usage patterns lead to problems in some people but not others, or do so to a lesser degree.

Additionally, "digital addiction" remains a fiercely contested concept, in spite of the World Health Organization's recent move to include "gaming disorder" in its own codex of maladies, called the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.

"There's a lot of disagreement about what that thing is. There's a larger chicken-and-egg kind of argument," Chris Ferguson, a clinical psychologist who studies the effects of media on children at Stetson University, told Business Insider.

People overdo media, but people overdo lots of other things too — food and sex and work and exercise.

"There's no question that people overdo media, but people overdo lots of other things too — food and sex and work and exercise," he said. "So one question is, is the overuse of media different from the overuse of all these other things?"

According to some evidence, Ferguson said, overuse of technologies like smartphone apps and video games may just be one facet of larger, underlying mental-health problems.

"In other words, a person already has depression, anxiety, [attention-deficit disorder] — something of that sort — before they start having difficulty regulating their media use," Ferguson said. It isn't clear whether the tech itself shoulders any blame, other than being a good escape.

"People are drawn to fun things, and some people have difficulty regulating the use of those fun things," he added.

But such disagreements don't negate a potential for harm, especially among young kids, said Dimitri Christakis, a pediatrician at Seattle Children's Hospital.

"We think a lot about digital addiction in older children and adults, but I think the roots of it, especially nowadays, are going to increasingly be in infancy," Christakis, who directs the hospital's Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, told Business Insider.

Screen time and kids' brain development

From infancy through toddlerhood, kids are obsessed with exploring cause and effect, Christakis said. This exploratory phase coincides with a remarkable period of brain development.

We think a lot about digital addiction in older children and adults, but I think the roots of it, especially nowadays, are going to increasingly be in infancy.

My daughter's brain probably weighed about 333 grams at her birth, but it will swell to 1,000 grams by the time she's 2 years old, a 300% increase in mass. Her brain will grow by only another 300 grams or so over the following 18 to 20 years.

By the time she's 3, the synapses or connections between her brain's thinking cells, called neurons, will have multiplied sixfold from birth. Those abundant connections are itching to get organized, and incessantly interacting with the world (including with electronics) is how those refinements happen. But the truth is we still don't know to what extent exposure to smartphones and other touchscreen devices has on development.

"I honestly think that this is one of the million-dollar questions," Barr said. "We know very little."

There's a dearth of data in part because it's difficult to measure the brains of rambunctious children who may be scared by big MRI machines or unable to stay perfectly still inside of them.

Barr is working to change that as the director of Georgetown's Early Learning Project, which focuses on kids' digital-media use at age 5 years and younger.

In the ELP's "media and the mind" experiments, for example, Barr's team has kids interact with custom-built apps while they wear a functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) device. It's a stretchy cap lined with bright infrared lights and sensors. The lights illuminate the kids' brains through their skulls, and the sensors constantly measures the emissions to quantify the brain's electrical activity.

fnirs cap child brain functional near infrared spectroscopy youtube elp georgetown

The system is quick, comfortable, and safe, so Barr's team is using it on toddlers to measure the effects of different media on young minds.

This new approach hasn't yet been used for long-term studies. But by looking at a kid's behavior, memory recall, and other observations — as scientists have done for decades with TV media — Barr's work offers insights into what is and isn't good for children when it comes to screens.

"Content is really, really critical," she said. "It's just that we don't really know how that is associated with brain development, or changes in brain development, or any of those questions, because we haven't directly measured it yet."

For instance, there's a lot of evidence that having a screen on in the background (such as TV noise) lowers the quality of kids' play, reading, and conversation. It also seems to impair or delay the development of language and executive function, which is a mental bucket that contains noticing details, committing them to memory, and then applying them to future relevant situations.

"We know that babies don't understand [background TV] and it does change their ability to play," Barr said. "That's a real problem. It interrupts their play; it interrupts parents' discussions with their children."

How early is too early?

infant toddler baby holding smartphone phone video chat calling shutterstock

Parents are pounded over the head with the idea that kids under 2 years shouldn't use screens at all. Actually, the American Academy of Pediatrics' latest — and popular — recommendations for media use in children, published in November 2016, has revised that age to 18 months, advising that screen exposure at 18 months and younger doesn't seem to confer any benefits.

But newer research suggests that age limit isn't so straightforward.

Take one surprising finding from a recent study of 25 families who volunteered to let researchers record short video-chat sessions with grandparents on FaceTime, Skype, and Google Hangouts. The kids were 6 months to 24 months old, yet the researchers said they were "remarkably successful" at following the focus and directions of another person (in this case, their on-screen grandparents), a property called joint attention.

Joint attention is a foundation to learning language, abstract thinking, and a raft of other abilities, including a way to forge emotional relationships with long-distance family members.

Another recent experiment with video chatting and kids 12 months to 25 months suggest they learn significantly more from interactive sessions than watching a prerecorded video of roughly the same lesson.

And supervised video-chatting may even be helpful for older kids, since studies show kids younger than 7 struggle to use telephones to communicate solely through audio.

Christakis was a lead author on those AAP recommendations, which references nearly 50 scientific studies — most of them focused on TV media, plus some newer investigations into interactive mobile devices and their content.

He said that 18-month cutoff was a big revision to the organization's previous recommendations, which advised not exposing kids younger than 2 years old. But, he explained, the previous rule viewed "all screens" equally.

"The childhood screen experience is no longer what it used to be," Christakis said. "There's video chatting, there's reading a book on an iPad, and if we sort of conflate all of these activities as 'screen time,' we're missing the reality of the experience that Skyping grandma is different than watching Baby Einstein."

We're missing the reality of the experience that Skyping grandma is different than watching Baby Einstein.

One reason the recommendations don't match with the research is that the AAP traditionally reviews its guidelines just once every five years, even though technology changes far faster than that. It also takes time, effort, and money to perform and publish large, high-quality studies. "There's clearly been a recognition that's not fast enough in areas like this, where the terrain is changing so rapidly," Christakis said.

As an example, he said that the iPad, coveted by many children, came out eight years ago, in 2010, around the time the AAP published its previous guidelines. New recommendations at least every two years makes more sense, according to Christakis.

How much is too much?

Another often spread recommendation is that kids have their screen time limited to no more than two hours a day.

The AAP's newest recommendations actually halve the "two hours a day" to "no more than 1 hour per day" for kids age 2 to 5 years, and emphasizes a focus on "high-quality programming," including PBS's "Sesame Street" and "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood."

The guidelines also advise shutting off screens at meals, to encourage conversation, and at least an hour before bed, since screen use can delay sleep and lower sleep quality in kids. This is in part because blue-light exposure is known to affect the body's circadian rhythm. (The same recommendations apply to adults.)

The core rationale to limiting screen time, though, is based on many studies of sedentary TV-watching: the more of it kids get, the greater their risk for obesity seems to be, along with delays in language, cognitive, and social-emotional development. But the AAP itself says the research on mobile screens is thin at best, because traditional TV is neither interactive, nor portable, nor as overrun with fast-food advertisements.

To Christakis, it's really a question of how far "good" content can go when kids have only so much time in a day.

"The upside for very young children is being exaggerated when people talk about the educational value," Christakis went on. "If two-thirds of their home time is being spent with an iPad or watching a television program — even if they're educational programs, even if they're high-quality programs — what are they not doing?"

If two-thirds of their home time is being spent with an iPad or watching a television program ... what are they not doing?

The answer: They are not doing a lot of things "that are really important to young children' cognitive and emotional and social development," he said.

Ferguson, who's know for contrarian views in his field, also takes issue with some the AAP's recommendations, especially with the imperative that content always be educational, all the time.

"Obviously there are certain activities that are going to most likely result in learning for [kids]," he said. "But babies can't do that every hour they're awake. They're going to get frustrated and crazy, and the parents will too. I think that's where sometimes the advice gets pernicious: Advising the parent that the baby always has to be on, and the parent always has to be on, and neither can take a break."

The same holds true for preschool kids. A December 2017 study on screen use by the UK's National Survey of Children's Health is one of the largest and most recent. It questioned 19,957 parents around 2012 about their 2- to 5-year-old kids. It found "little or no support for harmful links between digital screen use and young children's psychological well-being," the study's authors wrote.

In other words, the two-hour-per-day limit is meant to be a guideline for most families on most days, not an ironclad rule of law.

"Each parent makes decisions — rightly — based on how their own child is affected," Christakis said, adding that "some children may not be at risk at all" for extended screen time.

Ferguson also feels that parents should mostly trust their gut on what's appropriate for their kids, and that it's OK to bend the rules now and then and just for fun.

"You're allowed to take a break, and you're allowed to let your toddler take a break and do something goofy for awhile," Ferguson said. "Be strategic, but mellow out a little bit too. Half an hour, an hour spent with a screen isn't going to break your kid."

The benefits of tech

Kids and screens guide

With so much focus on the risks that smartphones may bring to families, it's easy to forget about the potential benefits, including video-chatting.

Touchscreens provide what Christakis calls "contingent responses." When kids touch the screen they make something predictably and reliably happen. That's not only a fun experience for kids, he says, but "has a potential big upside" — used correctly — for learning information and concepts that static media like books, TV, and toys can't offer.

Barr echoed this optimism, especially as smartphones become more affordable. Used thoughtfully, she says, smartphones can help parents build vast electronic educational libraries through apps, e-books, and streaming video. And they can use the devices themselves to get parenting advice and help.

"Smartphones can be really big resources for families who haven't got a lot of other resources," Barr said.

Researchers consistently find that one key to beneficial screen time, especially for young children, is caretaker involvement, particularly a concept called scaffolding, wherein caretakers help a child map what's on the screen to the real world.

The younger the kid, the less her brain will understand abstract ideas, and this seems pointedly so for digital content. So Barr studied screen-based learning in kids with and without a caretaker's involvement — for example, a caregiver saying, "See the cat on the screen? That looks like our cat at home."

Barr found a remarkable difference.

"The baby was 19 times more likely to make the connection and to learn that this thing on the screen had something else that was related out in the real world," she said.

Ultimately, screen time can be perfectly fun and healthy for young kids, especially if it's a way for parents and kids to play together, the experts conclude.

"Consider what is meaningful to your child: What maps onto the real world and the digital world? And consider how you might help them navigate between those two worlds," Barr said. "It's just like any other type of play: You need to be paying attention to what they're learning and what they're figuring out."

SEE ALSO: Babies cry in the womb and 18 other facts I learned when I became a dad

DON'T MISS: Holding a baby can make you feel bodaciously high, and it's a scientific mystery

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Kids tell us what they think the most important job in the world is

One type of exercise is the closest thing to a miracle drug that we have — and new research suggests intense workouts aren't the only option

0
0

woman running jogging exercise

  • Many people wonder whether it's better for your health to do occasional intense workouts or daily low-level activity.
  • New research from the American Heart Association suggests that it doesn't matter, as long as your workouts fall into one category: aerobic exercise.
  • That means that whether you're signed up for a twice-weekly spinning class or you simply move around a lot throughout the day, your body and brain will reap the benefits.


To walk or to run, that is often the question.

In other words, if you're looking to improve your health, is it better to commit to an occasional all-out sweat fest or simply incorporate more walking and moving into your day?

A new study suggests a simple answer to this years-old conundrum: it doesn't matter.

For better health and a reduced risk of death from all causes, any kind of movement is better than little or none.

That means that any effort that gets you moving and breathing — whether it's a twice-weekly heart-pounding kickboxing class or a 30-minute walk to work — has measurable benefits for your brain and body.

The research, published Friday in the Journal of the American Heart Association, used data on physical activity and death rates from national surveys of more than 4,800 adults. The authors of the study sorted peoples' activity into two categories: their total minutes of activity per day and their total minutes of "bouted" or intense or concentrated activity per day.

To count as a "bout," an exercise spell had to last at least 5-10 minutes, but breaks of 1-2 minutes between bouts were allowed. The researchers then looked for potential linkages between subjects' activity levels, types of activity, and their chances of dying from any causes.

You might assume that people with more bouted activity — including workouts like cycling classes, interval training or tabata, and marathon training— fared better than people who simply walked or moved around a lot. In reality, the study revealed that neither type of activity had a significant edge over the other.

"The key message based on the results," the authors wrote, "is that total physical activity (i.e., of any bout duration) provides important health benefits."

Why cardio exercise is so good for our brain and body

An elderly man swimsThe most recent study didn't examine the types of activity that participants did in detail, but plenty of other research has extolled the benefits of cardio, or aerobic, workouts— defined as any type of movement that raises your heart rate and gets you moving and sweating for a sustained period of time.

Unlike weight or strength training, which involves working specific muscle groups, cardio raises your heart rate, thereby improving heart and lung health.

Aerobic exercise has also been tied to a wide range of benefits for the brain, including lifts in mood, improvements in the symptoms of depression, and even potential protection against some forms of age-related cognitive decline.

Cardio workouts "have a unique capacity to exhilarate and relax, to provide stimulation and calm, to counter depression and dissipate stress," according to a recent article in Harvard's "Mind and Mood" blog.

The reason aerobic workouts lift our spirits seems related to their ability to reduce levels of natural stress hormones, such as adrenaline and cortisol, according to a study in the Journal of Physical Therapy Science. Activities like running and swimming also increase overall blood flow and provide our minds fresh energy and oxygen — another factor that could help us feel better.

So whether you're looking for benefits related to mood, memory, or overall health, the take-home message is clear: the more you move, the healthier you're likely to be.

DON'T MISS: It might be healthier to run a mile than a marathon

SEE ALSO: 14 ways one type of exercise is the closest thing to a miracle drug we have

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why we knock on wood, and the truth about 7 other common superstitions

The worst current TV show on each network — from CBS to Fox to Netflix

0
0

The Orville Seth MacFarlane

In today's crowded TV landscape, networks and streaming services have all increased the quantity of their offerings — at times to the detriment of quality. 

While series like Fox's "The Orville" and NBC's "Taken" have been consistently critically panned, many of the shows on this list draw a substantial enough viewership to justify their existence. 

But to figure out which current shows are worth avoiding, we turned to the reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes to select the most critically loathed scripted show that each network and service is currently producing.

We excluded children's shows, talk shows, and docuseries, and we only selected from networks with multiple scripted shows that had enough reviews to receive a "Fresh" or "Rotten" designation. We also excluded any network whose lowest-rated show was over 75 on the critic scale, and used audience scores to break any ties within networks.

Here is the worst current TV show on each network, according to critics:

SEE ALSO: The best current TV show on each network — from ABC to FX to Netflix

ABC: "Marvel's Inhumans"

Critic score: 10%

Audience score: 50%

Summary: "An isolated community of superhumans fight to protect themselves."



Amazon: "Lore"

Critic score: 65%

Audience score: 65%

Summary: "Our collective nightmare mythologies are rooted in real-life horror stories."



AMC: "The Son"

Critic score: 50%

Audience score: 85%

Summary: "A multi-generational epic telling of the story of America's birth as a superpower through the bloody rise and fall of one Texas oil empire."



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Flight attendants share 5 things you'd have to do to get kicked off your next flight

0
0

Flight attendants

  • Passenger misbehavior is a problem for flight attendants and other airline crew members.
  • Flight attendants are not paid to enforce the rules — but they are empowered to remind passengers about them, and, if necessary, report issues to the captain.
  • The airplane captain will make the final decision on whether to divert the plane, restrain the passenger, or refuse to board the passenger. There are a few things passengers do that all but guarantee this will happen to them.

If social media accounts, YouTube videos, and recent media coverage are any indication, extreme passenger misbehavior is rampant on airplanes.

Whether this behavior is getting worse or if we're simply seeing more of it documented is unclear, but one question remains: What can airline crew do about misbehaving passengers?

During flight attendant training, the importance of safety is drilled home for practically six weeks straight. Flight attendants Business Insider spoke with said if defusing the situation is not an option, crewmembers may refuse to board the passenger, restrain the passenger, and divert the flight. Some flight attendants can even use tasers on passengers in an emergency.

"We all just want to get on the plane and get where we're going," Annette Long, a flight attendant with 16 years of experience, told Business Insider. "We don't need to have any problems."

But she also said that it's the law that passengers comply with the crew members' instructions.

"My job isn't to enforce stuff — it's to let you know that there are certain things that you can't cross the line on — so don't make me pull this plane over," she said.

And once that line is crossed and a flight attendant reports it, often the decision on what to do is in the pilot's hands.

"Most of the pilots say to us, 'If you've got a problem with them, I've got a problem with them,' and they will back us up 100%," Long said.

So what would a passenger have to do for flight attendants to take extreme measures like kicking a passenger off a flight?

SEE ALSO: Inside the intensive, two-month training all Delta flight attendants must attend that's harder to get into than Harvard

DON'T MISS: What to do about a screaming child on board, according to flight attendants

Showing signs of being intoxicated

"If you were to come on the plane drunk — if the agent missed it and we noticed it before we left — you'd be escorted off the plane," Long said. "Because we don't need you to get up to 35,000 feet and get crazy on us. Most of the time people don't do that. But, as a flight attendant, you have to do things with an abundance of caution."



Showing signs of being sick

"In today's day, there's zero tolerance for an obviously sick person — for example, someone who is vomiting — boarding a plane," a flight attendant with 30 years of experience told Business Insider.



Being aggressive with the crew

"Disrespect to a crew member, whether verbal or physical," is a huge no-no, a flight attendant with 30 years of experience told Business Insider.

"If you cuss at a flight attendant, it's immediately considered a threat, and if we're still in the boarding process, there's a good chance you'll be taking the next flight," a flight attendant with three years of experience told Business Insider.

"If you were belligerent with us before we took off, you wouldn't go," Long said.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider
Browsing All 47773 Browse Latest View Live