The-right-way-to-ask-questions-about-AI-in-your.jpeg

The right way to ask questions about AI in your next job interview

AI is changing how many companies work — and how you should interview.

More employers are likely to be sizing up your AI know-how. That means you should be asking questions, too.

It’s worth assessing whether a company is actually integrating AI or mostly talking about it, Jeff Hyman, a recruiter with about 30 years of experience, told Business Insider.

You’ll want to know specifics, like what tools you’ll be able to use, and broader ideas like how an employer thinks about AI. It’s also key to frame the questions in a way that conveys enthusiasm, while also getting as many clues as possible. Here’s what to ask:

Their approach

To start, you might ask about a company’s AI strategy for 2026. That’s about the right timeframe to ask about, Hyman said, because it acknowledges that the technology is changing so rapidly that it’s hard to see too far into the future. It might also help you understand whether a company is thinking about AI as a way to drive growth or mainly to cut costs.

Next, Hyman suggests asking how the team you’d be joining uses AI on a day-to-day basis. Listen for an answer that’s vague, he said, because that can signal an employer is early in its AI journey. That’s not necessarily a red flag, though it’s important to know where things stand, Hyman said.

It can also be smart to get a sense of whether a company is betting too heavily on AI or taking a more measured approach, said Erin McGoff, who founded and runs the career-education platform AdviceWithErin.

Asking about a company’s approach is a way to find out whether it’s “AI drunk” and thinks the technology will change everything, or if it’s barely affecting the business, she told Business Insider.

Their tools

One of the clearest signals of how seriously a company takes AI is the tools employees can actually use — and how much access they have.

Hyman said candidates should treat AI access the way they once evaluated basic workplace tech. Years ago, you might have asked whether you’d get a work laptop or phone. Now, it’s reasonable to ask whether you’ll have access to paid AI tools — and which ones — or would have to rely on free versions on your own.

“Companies that are going cheap really signal that they’re trying to get something for nothing,” he said. “They want the AI gains, but they’re not willing to invest in them.”

When it comes to using AI, ask whether usage is monitored or restricted, said Katy Mooney, a leadership coach and coauthor of the forthcoming book “Up! The Playbook for Every Woman on the Rise.”

It’s also wise to ask who makes decisions about those tools. Does your boss control it, or would you have a say? That might include asking about a token allotment, which is like a data plan for AI use.

“I would ask about their flexibility when it comes to your preferences, because if they’re forcing you to use something that feels weird and you don’t like, that matters,” McGoff said.

Their expectations

Beyond access, you want to understand whether your boss will evaluate how much you use AI, McGoff said.

Because it’s still so new for many companies, a lot of them are scrambling and “just want you to use it,” she said.

It’s OK to ask about the expectations for creating new procedures that incorporate AI. That kind of work can add up to “additional cognitive labor,” McGoff said.

“Are you also expected to actually figure out how to implement AI in your job?” she said.

Hyman said to be careful about how you ask about AI use, however. You don’t want to seem like you’re resistant to the technology, he said.

“The message you want to send — and the undertone is — ‘Charlie, you’re going to need to hold me back, because I have so many ideas of how we can bring AI to bear,'” Hyman said.

To that point, he said, show up at an interview with specific ideas about how you’d use AI in the role.

“Even if the boss has already thought of those things, at least he or she knows that you’re thinking about it,” Hyman said.

Their training

Finally, in any interview, both sides are assessing each other. So don’t hesitate to ask how a company will help you grow alongside AI.

“You need to ask, ‘Will the company be providing comprehensive training resources and support around AI implementation into this role? Or will I be left to fend for myself?'” McGoff said.

Some companies might want you to do the work of figuring out what to do with AI, while others might want you to stay within firm boundaries, she said.

Ultimately, asking open-ended questions gives those running the interview room the opportunity to explain their approach.

Mooney suggests questions such as, “How is AI affecting the work you do and your business?” and “How does it affect how you’re managing the workplace?”

Do you have a story to share about your interview experience? Contact this reporter at tparadis@businessinsider.com.




Source link

James Faris headshot

We answered 11 big questions about the Paramount-WBD deal and what happens next

Paramount Skydance outbid Netflix for Warner Bros. Discovery, but the Hollywood-shaking agreement isn’t a done deal.

WBD had planned to sell its studio and streaming assets to Netflix. Paramount wouldn’t give up its pursuit of WBD, including its cable networks, however. After 10 offers, WBD’s board finally said Paramount’s latest bid was better, and Netflix decided to bow out.

Still, Paramount and its CEO, David Ellison, need regulatory approval in the US and abroad, which WBD CEO David Zaslav told employees could take six to 18 months, Business Insider reported.

In the meantime, everyone from actors to zealous fans of TV and movies has questions about the deal. Business Insider set out to answer them by hosting an Ask Me Anything Q&A session on the r/MediaMergers subreddit.

Below are some of the top questions, along with Business Insider senior reporter James Faris’ answers, based on reporting, company statements, and informed analysis. The Reddit Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What are the biggest risks to this deal collapsing? Also, what are the chances it will spill into next year before closing (if it does)?

The biggest risk to the Paramount-WBD deal now is regulatory. David Ellison and his father, Larry, the billionaire Oracle cofounder helping backstop the $110 billion deal, certainly aren’t backing out. And neither are WBD shareholders, since they’d lose a lot of value if they didn’t take this deal with Netflix out of the picture.

As far as the timing, WBD’s Zaslav told staffers during a town hall last Friday that the Paramount-WBD deal approval process could last six to 18 months.

Paramount has agreed to pay a so-called “ticking fee” of $0.25 per share, or about $650 million, every quarter that its deal doesn’t get regulatory approval, starting on September 30.

Is this deal going to be held up in court?

While many analysts and insiders expect the US regulatory process for this deal to be relatively painless, Paramount may face harder challenges at the state level and abroad, including in Europe.

Even if regulators don’t block the Paramount-Warner deal, they could slow it down, costing the Ellisons time and money.

What is the biggest financial risk that the Ellisons are taking on?

The biggest risk here is that the combined Paramount-WBD doesn’t grow earnings fast enough and gets crushed by the massive debt load it’s taking on. (This was also an issue faced by WBD.)

Paramount-Warner will have tens of billions in debt it must pay down, in part by cutting costs, as WBD did. However, growing earnings is also crucial, and it’s very difficult to “cut to growth,” so that’s a challenge ahead of Ellison.

Was it ever an option for Warner Bros. to remain independent after the potential split with Discovery? Alternatively, was there an attempt to sell Discovery to Paramount while Warner Bros. maintained its independence?

No, there was never a realistic plan for Warner Bros. to be independent, since it controls the highly coveted studio and HBO assets that Paramount, Netflix, and Comcast were fighting over.

WBD’s cable networks would have become their own company if Netflix had won the bidding war, since the streaming giant only wanted the studio and streaming side.

Paramount, on the other hand, wanted to buy all of WBD before it broke itself apart.

WBD was formed when Discovery CEO David Zaslav believed that joining forces with Warner Bros. would create a media powerhouse. He took on a ton of debt and promised investors billions of dollars in cost cuts and earnings growth.

WBD’s revenue declined instead of growing, and its stock sank. Zaslav then tried a different strategy by formulating a plan to split off the company’s declining cable TV assets.

As a public company, WBD had to sell itself to the bidder the board believed would deliver the highest value to shareholders. WBD was worth about $10 per share before all the split-and-sale rumors began. So when someone eventually offers to buy the company at $31 per share, the board essentially has to sell.

What are they going to name the new company? Warner Skydance ParaBros? Mount Discovery sounds like a mouthful.

Ellison hasn’t said yet, but there are four names between the two companies: Paramount, Skydance, Warner (Bros.), and Discovery.

If I were Ellison, I’d call the new company “Paramount Warner.” I get the sense they want to make Paramount a household name, and Warner is what many call the WBD assets anyway.

And if Ellison wants to keep the Skydance name alive, the official company name could be: “Paramount Warner, A Skydance Corporation.”

Do you think the studio is viable? Or will it be sold off again in a few years?

Paramount has said that it’s planning to keep Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. Studios brands separate, with an ambitious goal of producing a combined 30 movies a year.

As to whether there will be another sale in a few years, that will likely depend on whether Paramount can successfully grow earnings while paying down the debt load it’s taking on.

That’s no easy task — just ask WBD.

Netflix has been the clear winner of the streaming wars. Does this deal change its strategy at all?

Netflix is also widely seen as a winner in this deal since it’s collecting a $2.8 billion breakup fee, while driving up the WBD purchase price for an emerging rival.

Netflix could invest that money — and the tens of billions it was planning to put into Warner Bros. — into original and licensed content.

While Paramount-WBD tries to play catch-up in the fight for engagement, Netflix is looking to extend its lead over other paid streamers. Netflix also wants to close the gap with YouTube and take attention from free streamers and social media apps like TikTok and Instagram.

And if in a few years the Paramount-WBD deal doesn’t work out, Netflix could potentially swoop in and buy assets.

Do you think Zaslav and other WB officials are annoyed that Netflix bowed out? It seemed like they wanted Netflix, but Ellison finally raised his bid.

Before WBD floated its split plan last December, the stock was trading around $10 per share. Paramount has agreed to pay more than 3x that amount.

So while the purchase price could have gone even higher if Netflix decided to bid again, WBD execs can’t complain about the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re set to rake in.

Both studios have a lot of movies that are in development. What are the risks to those movies? Are TV shows more at risk compared to movies?

In the near term, not much, since this deal won’t close anytime soon.

The bigger question is whether Paramount-WBD will spend as much on content as company leaders have said they would.

What’s going to happen to the studio lots? Will they work from both or consolidate to one campus?

Ellison highlighted the combined “real estate footprint” as one of the five main areas of cost savings in the WBD deal, so offices will definitely get consolidated.

As for the lots, that’s still an open question. If one studio lot goes up for sale, would Netflix be a buyer?

What kind of involvement does Saudi Arabia have? Will there be any concerns about the content side?

My colleague Peter Kafka has been asking that question. Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar were financial backers in earlier versions of Paramount’s bid, but Paramount won’t say whether they’re still involved.




Source link

Tech-leaders-are-raising-tough-questions-over-Matt-Shumers-viral.jpeg

Tech leaders are raising tough questions over Matt Shumer’s viral essay on how AI will impact jobs.

Scientists and business leaders are responding to a viral essay warning of AI’s impact on jobs with a mix of agreement and skepticism.

The essay, titled “Something Big is Coming,” written by cofounder and CEO of OthersideAI, Matt Shumer, has racked up more than 60 million views on X as of Thursday.

In the 5,000-word post, Shumer said that AI could upend daily life on a scale “much bigger” than COVID, a comparison which drew pushback online. He wrote that the changes already unfolding in the tech sector are likely a preview of disruptions that could soon reach other industries as well.

“Even if there is a 20% chance of this happening, people deserve to know and have time to prepare,” Shumer told Business Insider’s Brent Griffiths in an interview.

Here’s what some of the sharpest minds in AI are saying about Shumer’s essay.

David Haber

Haber, a general partner at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz specializing in technology investments, posted on X that Shumer’s essay contains “great advice for how to get ahead in your job at any large company right now.”

“‘I used AI to do this analysis in an hour instead of three days is going to be the most valuable person in the room.’ Not eventually. Right now,” Haber quotes from the essay. “Learn these tools. Get proficient. Demonstrate what’s possible.”

Alexis Ohanian

The Reddit founder responded to Shumer’s initial post on X with a simple comment: “Great writeup. Strongly agree.”

Since 2023, Reddit has introduced a range of AI-driven tools, from search features that summarize user discussions to AI that sharpens its content recommendations and targets ads, but Ohanian recently emphasized that the platform must retain its humanity to stay competitive.

Eric Markowitz

Markowitz, the author and managing partner and director of research at Nightview Capital, a long-term-oriented investment firm, responded to Schumer with an essay almost as long, which criticized the practice of chasing speed and replacing the value of humanity simply because it could be done.

“These two worlds — Wall Street and Silicon Valley — have formed a feedback loop of short-termism so tight, so self-reinforcing, that they’ve confused efficiency with purpose, growth with meaning, and the elimination of people with progress,” wrote Markowitz.

“I have two research assistants. Could I replace them with AI? Of course. But their value extends their weekly output,” Markowitz added. “They give meaning to my work and I love seeing the excitement in their faces when they make a new discovery that I, alone, could not have found.”

“Let me say it again: we are not our tools. We never have been,” Markowitz wrote in conclusion.

Todd McLees

McLees, the founder of HumanSkills.AI, wrote on X that Shumer is not wrong, but he said that the advice Shumer provided is akin to “telling someone the floodwaters are rising and handing them a better bucket.”

“As AI grows in ability, our role in defining direction, values, and purpose only becomes more essential,” McLees said.

“What do you bring when the machine can do the work? That’s the only question that matters when intelligence is abundant,” McLees added. “Shumer wrote the alarm. It’s a good one. But alarms don’t tell you where to go. You have to find that within yourself.”

Gary Marcus

Marcus, Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Neural Science at NYU and founder of AI companies Robust.AI, has some harsh words for Schumer in his newsletter.

Marcuz called Shumer’s blog post “weaponized hype, filled with vivid narrative and marketing speech,” and said he did not provide real data to support the claim that the latest AI can write complicated apps without mistakes.

“Shumer’s presentation is completely one-sided, omitting lots of concerns that have been widely expressed here and elsewhere,” Marcus added, after discussing various studies that question the accuracy and productivity gain AI tools actually provide.

Vishal Misra

Misra, Vice Dean of Computing and Artificial Intelligence at Columbia University, responded in a lengthy Substack article that detailed why he doesn’t think AI is as scary as it sounds, at least not right now.

Misra wrote that many strange AI behaviors that make them seem sentient, such as perceived resistance and self-preservation, are simply a result of training data.

As for the possible elimination of jobs, Misra said he understands the anxiety, but history says we may not need to panic.

“When the camera was invented, portrait painters had every reason to panic. Their livelihood depended on a skill that a machine could now approximate,” Misra wrote.

“What happened? Painters didn’t disappear. They were freed from the obligation to faithfully reproduce reality and ventured into impressionism, cubism, abstract expressionism,” Misra added. “The camera didn’t kill painting. It liberated it.”




Source link

James Faris headshot

Bari Weiss fielded tough questions from CBS News staffers about political bias and the network’s future at a town hall

CBS News employees put top editor Bari Weiss in the hot seat during an all-hands meeting on Tuesday, asking about her vision and standards for the nearly century-old broadcast network.

The first question in the Q&A part of her town hall asked how she would respond to criticism that CBS News is turning into “a right-wing network” under her leadership.

“I’m here to do one thing. It’s not to be a mouthpiece for anybody. It’s simply to be a mouthpiece for fairness and the pursuit of truth,” Weiss said at the all-hands meeting, according to a recording obtained by Business Insider.

Weiss, who became the editor in chief of CBS News in October after Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison bought her opinion site The Free Press, asked staffers to examine the coverage since her appointment.

“There’s a lot of noise out there, but I would just urge anyone who suggests that to look at our work and judge for yourself,” she said.

Weiss was then asked how the network’s news-gathering standards had changed since she took over.

“I don’t think our standards have changed,” she said, adding that the network was “in very capable hands” regarding editorial standards.

Weiss said she ‘was not pressured’ to hold the ’60 Minutes’ segment

Weiss caused a stir in December for a late-hour decision to delay a “60 Minutes” segment about the Trump administration deporting migrants to the CECOT prison in El Salvador. Critics questioned her commitment to hard-hitting journalism and wondered whether Paramount leadership was influencing editorial decisions at CBS News — a notion that Weiss strongly denied on Tuesday.

“I want to just say this as plainly and clearly as possible. I was not pressured by David Ellison or anyone else,” Weiss said during the town hall. Weiss acknowledged that delaying the segment after commercials had already run for it was bad timing.

“I didn’t know the screening schedule for every single thing, that specific logistical nightmare,” she said. “That’s never going to happen again. So please rest assured that nothing of that kind is ever going to happen again. You have my promise.”

That said, she added that “asking for more information” and “trying to go back to a source” for a comment was an editorial policy she wanted to prioritize to build trust with audiences, as she explained in a December memo to employees.

“I felt it was important to do our best to try and get a voice from the administration, and I’m always going to be pushing for that,” Weiss said.

Weiss had little experience in traditional TV before joining CBS News. Instead, she became known in 2020 for her dramatic exit from The New York Times, during which she alleged anti-conservative bias. Her next move, starting The Free Press, turned out to be lucrative when Ellison bought it for $150 million in October.

‘Loving America is not about jingoism’

On Tuesday, Weiss was also asked about her core values, including what one of the new guiding principles for CBS Evening News — “We Love America” — means for journalists.

“Loving America is not about jingoism. It’s not about blind patriotism,” Weiss told employees. “It’s about vociferous defense of the principles and values that have made this country exceptional and that allow us to do the work that we do. And so anyone that disagrees with that, I’d love to have a conversation with you.”

When asked whether “CBS Mornings” would undergo another shake-up, Weiss noted that it had already undergone a major change, with longtime anchor Tony Dokoupil moving to the evening show.

“Speculation about Gayle King seems to be a favorite parlor game of a lot of newspapers and people in this building, and I just want everyone here to know that she’s absolutely beloved and see her long into the future here at CBS,” Weiss said.

A shift to a ‘streaming mentality’

In prepared remarks, Weiss said that CBS News needed to “shift to a streaming mentality immediately” and that if the broadcast network stuck mainly to its linear TV strategy, “we’re toast.”

When asked about staffing or potential layoffs at CBS News, Weiss said that she couldn’t make any promises amid a “tsunami of technological change.”

“I can’t stand up here and tell you that in a moment of incredible transformation that that’s not going to mean transformation of our workforce,” Weiss said. She added that CBS News is “also hiring people to suit that.”

On Tuesday, CBS News announced 19 new contributors to the network, including writers and podcasters like Coleman Hughes and Derek Thompson.

Weiss said that if she didn’t believe digital revenue could eventually replace linear TV revenue, she “wouldn’t be standing here.” She said that linear TV wouldn’t go away, but that revenue would “decline sharply, as will the audience.”

“What winning looks like writ large for this company is building incredible journalism for audiences that are so much bigger than the one that we currently have and are maintaining on linear,” Weiss said. “That’s what winning looks like. It’s really simple.”

Have a tip or thoughts on Bari Weiss’ strategy for CBS News? Contact this reporter via email at jfaris@businessinsider.com or Signal at @jamesfaris.01. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here’s our guide to sharing information securely.




Source link

The-US-strikes-and-raid-that-captured-Venezuelas-leader-raise.jpeg

The US strikes and raid that captured Venezuela’s leader raise some big questions. Here’s what we know.

The US executed targeted, large-scale attacks in Venezuela’s capital city, Caracas, overnight.

President Donald Trump said Saturday American forces struck the country’s military, turned off the lights in the city, and captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, for prosecution in New York.

The assault news has raised big questions. Here’s what we know right now.

What did the US military just do in Venezuela?


Picture of fire at Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela's largest military complex, after a series of explosions in Caracas on January 3, 2026.

The US carried out strikes in Venezuela early on Saturday.

Luis JAIMES / AFP



Early Saturday morning, Trump revealed on Truth Social that the US military carried out a “large-scale attack against Venezuela” and that the leader had been captured and taken out of the country.

The US president didn’t seek Congressional approval prior to the mission. Congress, however, was notified afterward.

Trump told Fox News he watched the capture of Maduro play out in real time from a room inside his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida alongside military generals.

“I was told by real military people that there’s no other country on Earth that can do such a maneuver,” he shared during a phone interview with Fox News. “If you would have seen what happened, I mean, I watched it literally, like I was watching a television show.”

Trump said the raid was “extremely complex,” more so than the Midnight Hammer operation against Iran’s nuclear sites conducted last year. Maduro and his wife were taken to the Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Iwo Jima.

Trump said US assets involved included land, air, and sea, including a “massive number” of aircraft and troops. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said the apprehension mission, called Absolute Resolve, was based on months of intelligence-gathering, including watching Maduro’s patterns of life, and involved all elements of the joint force, from space and cyber assets to traditional combat forces.

The assault involved 150 aircraft — fighter jets, bombers, electronic warfare planes, intelligence and surveillance aircraft, and helicopters and rotary aircraft — that provided “layered effects” to clear the way for the interdiction force to slip in with the “element of surprise” into downtown Caracas. Fighters and different drones covered the extraction.

There were no US personnel or equipment losses, Trump said; however, he did say that troops were hit, along with a helicopter that he said was hit “pretty hard.” Caine said the US responded to hostile fire with “overwhelming” force.

What has the Trump administration been saying about why this is necessary?


Groups of fighter jets sit on a tarmac.

The US military has built up a massive force presence in the Caribbean in recent months, including aircraft at an airport in Puerto Rico.

Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP



Tensions have been rising for months between Venezuela’s Maduro regime and the Trump administration, which has ramped up its rhetoric while increasing military action nearby.

The US has blamed Venezuela for pushing deadly drugs into the country, as well as using its oil industry, which the Trump administration says the US built and intends to take back, to fund narco-terrorism and other criminal activities.

The administration has labeled cartels and the Maduro regime terrorist organizations. Trump has also called Maduro an illegitimate leader.

What’s been happening in the lead-up to this assault?


A US Marine Corps UH-1Y Venom helicopter flies above José Aponte de la Torre Airport, formerly Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, on December 15, 2025 in Ceiba, Puerto Rico.

Trump said a US helicopter took fire during the operation in Venezuela.

Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP



The US has been launching attacks against alleged drug trafficking boats since September 2025, with over 100 people killed and others missing or captured.

A massive US force presence, including warships and combat aircraft, has been in the Caribbean to combat narcotics trafficking and pressure Venezuela for months.

More recently, US forces began executing a blockade of oil tankers out of Venezuela in an effort to enforce American oil sanctions, hurting a key Venezuelan export and straining its economy.

Maduro’s government said that the purpose of the US attack on Venezuela was to “seize Venezuela’s strategic resources, particularly its oil and minerals, in an attempt to forcibly break the nation’s political independence.”

How unusual is this?


A destroyed antiaircraft unit at La Carlota military air base, after US President Donald Trump said the US has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolás Maduro, in Caracas, Venezuela, January 3, 2026.

A destroyed air defense unit at a Venezuelan military base.

Leonardo Fernandez Viloria/REUTERS



The US has removed the leaders of sovereign states in the past. For instance, during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, it captured Saddam Hussein after the Bush administration asserted the Iraqi president had weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was later convicted for crimes against humanity by an Iraqi court and executed in December 2006.

A lack of evidence that Hussein’s regime had weapons of mass destruction led to criticisms against the Bush administration’s motives.

Much earlier, Panamanian military dictator Manual Noriega was also a target of American military forces during the US invasion of Panama from December 1989 to January 1990, partially prompted by his attempt to annul the results of the 1989 Panamanian general election. US courts had charged Noriega with drug smuggling and money laundering, and the Panamanian official was captured in January 1990 and taken to Miami, where he was convicted on most of the charges.

Both Noriega and Maduro were heads of state indicted by US federal courts, they were accused of using state power to facilitate drug trafficking, and the US could argue in both cases those actions taken against them were law enforcement.

The US has also conducted military action to kill prominent foreign figures. Exactly six years ago, US military personnel successfully assassinated Qasem Soleimani, a senior Iranian military officer, in a drone strike in Baghdad.

The US designated Soleimani a terrorist in 2005. In response to Soleimani’s assassination in January 2020, Iran launched missiles against US military bases in Iraq, injuring 110 US troops.

What’s happening now?


A woman wearing a hood and mask holds a sign that says,

Maduro and his wife have been indicted in New York, and Trump said the US will be involved in the next steps for the Venezuelan government.

Carlos Jasso/Reuters



Maduro and his wife are on their way to New York. Pamela Bondi, US attorney general, said that Maduro had been charged with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices, as well as conspiracy against the US.

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” Bondi said on X.

On Saturday morning, Trump posted a picture of Maduro in custody on Truth Social. The photo showed Maduro aboard USS Iwo Jima.


Venezuelan president Nicólas Maduro in custody.

Venezuelan president Maduro in custody on the USS Iwo Jima.

Truth Social



By law, Venezuelan vice president Delcy Rodríguez should assume power in Maduro’s absence. But Trump said the US would “run the country” until a “safe, proper” election can occur.

The president also added that US oil companies would be returning to Venezuela.




Source link

Oracle-investors-have-questions-about-its-spending.jpeg

Oracle investors have questions about its spending

Oracle investors have questions about its spending.

The software giant posted quarterly results that fell short of Wall Street’s revenue expectations on Wednesday, and shares slid more than 11% in after-hours trading.

“Capex & financing needs have been the biggest investor question over the last two months, weighing on the stock,” wrote Derrick Wood, an analyst at TD Cowen, ahead of the earnings call.

During the call with investors on Wednesday, Clay Magouyrk, co-CEO of Oracle, reassured analysts that the company’s debt remains in “investment-grade” and that the company is in unique business areas that justify the optimism.

“We’ve been reading a lot of analyst reports, and we’ve read quite a few that show an expectation of upward of a $100 billion for Oracle to go out and kind of complete these build-outs,” said Magouyrk.”And based on what we see right now, we expect we will need less, if not substantially less, money raised than that amount to go and fund this build out.”

Toward the end of the call, an analyst with Guggenheim Securities asked why Oracle is so optimistic that its growth will accelerate when most software service companies are seeing slowing growth, and Magouyrk responded that Oracle is the “only applications company in the world that’s selling complete application suites,” with added AI.

Despite the revenue miss, Oracle still saw 14% year-over-year revenue growth in the quarter ending November 30. Earnings per share also beat estimates at $2.26 versus the expected $1.64. Net income jumped to $6.14 billion, up sharply from $3.15 billion a year earlier.

The results drop as Oracle leans heavily into the AI frenzy, betting big on massive data center expansion to win more business.

In its September earnings report, Oracle stunned Wall Street with a surge in cloud bookings tied to AI workloads, a boom that sent the stock to a record high. But the rally didn’t last. Shares have since tumbled roughly a third as investors grow skittish about the enormous capital required to keep building data centers and whether Oracle’s biggest customer, OpenAI, can actually deliver on the multibillion-dollar cloud commitments it’s making.




Source link