Several parliamentarians and journalists warned their devices were likely compromised by 'state-sponsored attackers'.

At its “Scary Fast” event later today (Oct. 30), Apple is set to announce next-generation chips and devices, including a much-awaited new desktop computer.

Read more...

Apple went to the White House yesterday in support of a nationwide right-to-repair law. This isn’t a huge surprise considering the iPhone maker backed a California right-to-repair law a few months ago. But it’s a sharp U-turn from Apple’s stance a couple years ago, when self-repair was out of the question and the…

Read more...

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Robert Menendez has held on to his Senate seat and retained the loyalty of many Democratic colleagues through past scandals. But, given the current political environment and the gravity of the charges he now faces, many fellow Democrats have had enough—and voters might turn on him too.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

What’s the alternative to a ground offensive in Gaza? The great underappreciated driver of climate change A humanist manifesto

Undermining the High Ground

Yesterday afternoon, a couple of hours after pleading not guilty to the charge that he had conspired to act as an agent of a foreign government, Senator Robert Menendez announced that “the government is engaged in primitive hunting, by which the predator chases its prey until it’s exhausted and then kills it. This tactic won’t work.”

The senior senator from New Jersey’s plea—and subsequent defiant statement—came just a few weeks after he pleaded not guilty to three separate counts of corruption. Menendez and his wife, Nadine, were accused of accepting bribes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for helping the government of Egypt and several businessmen. The original indictment was quite dramatic, peppered with talk of more than $500,000 of stashed-away cash and photos of gold bars found in his New Jersey home. Within hours of Menendez’s indictment, several state leaders, including the governor, called on him to step down. But Menendez is fighting hard against the allegations, even as colleagues turn on him.

Menendez has positioned himself as a victim, and has invoked identity politics in trying to defend himself. “It is not lost on me how quickly some are rushing to judge a Latino and push him out of his seat,” he said shortly after his initial indictment was announced. He has also accused “those behind this campaign” of smearing him as part of their political agenda: “For years, forces behind the scenes have repeatedly attempted to silence my voice and dig my political grave,” he said in a statement last month. “Menendez has been using explicitly Trump-y talking points in his defense,” my colleague David Graham, who has covered the Menendez charges, told me.

The Menendez imbroglio puts the Democrats in a difficult position. The party has enjoyed some moral high ground as Donald Trump faces various criminal indictments. But having a member of their own party facing such galling corruption charges—and saying in his own defense that, essentially, the deep state is out to get him—may not only undermine that high ground, David said. It may weaken Democrats’ case against Trump’s own statements about being the victim of deep-state machinations, and it could damage voters’ faith in the Democratic Party.

This is not Menendez’s first time facing federal bribery charges: In 2015, he was accused of receiving gifts and some $750,000 in campaign donations from a Florida eye doctor. Those charges resulted in a hung jury, and ultimately the judge declared a mistrial. Menendez was able to maintain his seat through the turmoil, and he denied any wrongdoing. His colleagues, by and large, stood by him. But this time, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy called on Menendez to resign almost immediately after his indictment, and other state Democratic leaders soon followed. Cory Booker, the junior senator from New Jersey who has called Menendez a mentor and friend, urged his colleague to step down a few days after the indictment. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, meanwhile, has reportedly confronted Menendez in the halls of Congress (or, more precisely, on an escalator) to tell him to resign. More than half of Senate Democrats have called on Menendez to resign, though Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has been more reserved. “The Senator has made it clear that he is innocent and will not resign from his position as the senior U.S. Senator for New Jersey,” Robert Julien, a spokesperson for Mendendez’s office, told me in an email.

Part of the reason that many of Menendez’s colleagues are turning against him this time, David explained, has to do with the relative severity of the charges. Bribery charges are never a great look, but the charges Menendez currently faces cut to the core of his committee work in the Senate, accusing him of using his position as the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to work on behalf of a foreign power.

The calculations are likely political too: The last time Menendez faced bribery charges, Republican Chris Christie was the governor of New Jersey. If Menendez had given up his seat, Christie could have appointed a Republican in his place. Now the state has a Democratic governor in Murphy, who would presumably appoint a Democrat to replace him, David explained. Even so, Democrats are anxious about introducing uncertainty when they have such a razor-thin majority over Republicans in the Senate. Democrats have become more and more obsessed with beating their Republican opponents. That fixation on winning comes at a cost, David said: “If you are so focused on beating Republicans that you’re willing to look past corruption allegations, you ultimately undermine yourself, even if you can win the next election.”

But whether Menendez can actually win his next election is still a major question. He is a savvy backroom fighter, David explained, which has helped him stay in power in the cutthroat world of New Jersey politics. “There’s lots of backstabbing in ways that are totally legal, but not necessarily savory,” he said. Menendez has hung on through turbulence, but whether he can make it through this scandal intact will be, in part, up to the courts. It will also be up to voters.

Menendez’s trial is scheduled to begin on May 6, about a month before the primary race for his Senate seat. So far, Menendez has made no public indication that he won’t run for reelection. But his odds are not looking promising. He is being trounced in polls by Andrew Kim, a member of the House of Representatives who announced his campaign for Menendez’s seat the day after the senator was indicted. Menendez is innocent until proven guilty, but his constituents might just be ready to move on.

Related:

Bob Menendez never should have been senator this long in the first place. The case against Bob Menendez (From 2015)

Today’s News

A third former Trump-campaign lawyer, Jenna Ellis, pleaded guilty in the Georgia election-interference case. Israel escalated attacks on targets in Gaza, including a refugee camp. The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry said that more than 700 people were killed in a 24-hour period. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer has dropped out of the Speaker of the House race, just hours after becoming the nominee.

Evening Read

Fryderyk Gabowicz / picture-alliance / dpa / AP

Britney Finally Tells Her Story. It’s Dark.

By Spencer Kornhaber

One of the most disturbing parts of Britney Spears’s story has long been the way people talk about her. As soon as the pop star was released from the legal guardianship of her father in November 2021, ending a 13-year ordeal that she has described as torture, some onlookers asked whether one of the most successful women on Earth could handle living as an adult. In barroom chitchat, meandering podcasts, and online comment sections, you can now find people claiming that freeing Britney—allowing her to, for example, choose how she spends her money or what she eats for dinner—was a mistake. They cite alleged evidence of erratic behavior such as the recent video that the 41-year-old Spears posted of herself dancing sexily with prop knives.

Usually such skeptics speak in a conspiratorial tone, indicating that they think of themselves as radical truth-tellers defying the pink-uniformed groupthink of the #FreeBritney movement. But Spears’s new memoir makes clear that this shaming and second-guessing, using the language of care and concern, is deeply conventional. She portrays herself—including with the title The Woman in Me—as battling the media expectation that she remain trapped in girlhood, virginal and helpless.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

Shawn Fain’s old-time religion The Axis of Resistance has been gathering strength. Hands off Shakespeare.

Culture Break

A former inhabitant of the Chagos Archipelago—expelled when the U.S. built its military base there in the early 1970s—and his granddaughter in Port Louis, Mauritius. (Tim Dirven / Panos Pictures / Redux)

Read. A new book from Philippe Sands, The Last Colony, tells the story of the Chagossians, an island people who were expelled from their homes by the British and Americans.

Watch. The Pigeon Tunnel (streaming on Apple TV+) tries to capture the essence of John le Carré. It’s one of our critics’ 22 most exciting films to watch this season.

Play our daily crossword.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Just about everything you do on the internet is filtered through a handful of tech companies. Google is synonymous with search, Amazon with shopping; much of that happens on phones made by Apple. You might not always know when you’re interacting with the tech giants. Google and Meta alone capture something like half of online ad revenue in the United States. Movies, music, workplace software, and government benefits are all hosted on Big Tech’s data servers.

Big Tech’s stranglehold has lasted for so long that, even with recent antitrust lawsuits and whistleblower exposés, it’s difficult to imagine a world in which these companies are not so dominant. But the craze over generative AI is raising that very possibility. OpenAI, a start-up with only a few hundred employees, kicked off the generative-AI boom with ChatGPT last November and, almost a year later, is still making fools of trillion-dollar rivals. In an age when AI promises to transform everything, new companies are hurtling forward, and some of the behemoths are struggling to keep up. “We’re at one of these moments that could be a succession moment” for the tech industry, Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School who helped design the Biden administration’s antitrust and tech policy, told me.

Succession is hardly guaranteed, but a post–Big Tech world might not herald actual competition so much as a Silicon Valley dominated by another slate of fantastically large and powerful companies, some old and some new. Big Tech has wormed it way into every corner of our lives; now Big AI could be about to do the same.

Chatbots and their ilk are still in their early stages, but everything in the world of AI is already converging around just four companies. You could refer to them by the acronym GOMA: Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic. Shortly after OpenAI released ChatGPT last year, Microsoft poured $10 billion into the start-up and shoved OpenAI-based chatbots into its search engine, Bing. Not to be outdone, Google announced that more AI features were coming to Search, Maps, Docs, and more, and introduced Bard, its own rival chatbot. Microsoft and Google are now in a race to integrate generative AI into just about everything. Meanwhile, Anthropic, a start-up launched by former OpenAI employees, has raised billions of dollars in its own right, including from Google. Companies such as Slack, Expedia, Khan Academy, Salesforce, and Bain are integrating ChatGPT into their products; many others are using Anthropic’s chatbot, Claude.

Executives from GOMA have also met with leaders and officials around the world to shape the future of AI’s deployment and regulation. The four have overlapping but separate proposals for AI safety and regulation, but they have joined together to create the Frontier Model Forum, a consortium whose stated mission is to protect against the supposed world-ending dangers posed by terrifyingly capable models that do not yet exist but, it warns, are right around the corner. That existential language—about bioweapons and nuclear robots—has since migrated its way into all sorts of government proposals and language. If AI is truly reshaping the world, these companies are the sculptors.

Some of Big Tech’s old guard, meanwhile, haven’t been at the forefront of AI and are scrambling to get there. Apple has moved slowly on developing or incorporating generative AI, with one of its flashiest AI announcements centered on the mundane autocorrect. Siri remains the same old Siri. Amazon doesn’t have a salient language model and took almost a year to begin backing a major AI start-up in Anthropic; Meta’s premier language model is free to use, perhaps as a way to dissuade people from paying for OpenAI products. The company’s AI division is robust, but as a whole, Meta continues to lurch between social media, the metaverse, and chatbots.

Despite the large number of start-ups unleashed by the AI frenzy, the big four are already amassing technical and business advantages that are starting to look a lot like those of the current tech behemoths. Search, e-commerce, and the other Big Tech kingdoms were “prone towards tipping to just one or two dominant firms,” Charlotte Slaiman, the vice president of the nonprofit Public Knowledge, told me. “And I fear that AI may be like that as well.” Running a generative AI model such as ChatGPT comes at an “eye-watering” cost, in the words of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, because the most advanced software requires a huge amount of computing power. One analysis estimated that Altman’s chatbot costs $700,000 a day to run, which OpenAI would not confirm or deny. A conversation with Bard could cost 10 times more than a Google Search, according to Alphabet Chairman John Hennessy (other estimates are much higher).

Those computing and financial costs mean that companies that have already built huge amounts of cloud services, such as Google and Microsoft, or start-ups closely partnered with them, such as Anthropic and OpenAI, might be uncatchable in the AI race. In addition to raw computing power, creating these programs also demands a huge amount of training data, and these companies have a big head start in collecting them: Every chat with GPT-4 might be fodder for GPT-5. “There’s a lot of potential for anticompetitive conduct or just natural business-model pressures” to crowd out competition, Adam Conner, the vice president of technology policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-of-center think tank, told me.

These companies’ access to Washington, D.C., might also help lock in their competitive advantage. Framing their technology as powerful enough to end civilization has turned out to be perversely fantastic PR, allowing GOMA to present itself as trustworthy and steer conversations around AI regulation. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen this particular brand of corporate policy posturing as public relations,” Amba Kak, the executive director of the AI Now Institute and a former adviser on AI at the Federal Trade Commission, told me. If regulators continue to listen, America’s AI policy could functionally amount to Big AI regulating itself.

For their part, the four GOMA companies have provided various visions for a healthy AI industry. A spokesperson from Google noted the company’s support for a competitive AI environment, including the large and diverse set of third-party and open-source programs offered on Google Cloud, as well as the company’s partnerships with numerous AI start-ups. Kayla Wood, a spokesperson for OpenAI, pointed me to a blog post in which the company states that it supports start-up and open-source AI projects that don’t pose “existential risk.” Katie Lowry, a spokesperson for Microsoft, told me that the company has said that AI companies choose Microsoft’s cloud services “to enable AI innovation,” and the company’s CEO, Satya Nadella, has framed Bing as a challenger of Google’s dominance. Anthropic, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment, might be better known for its calls to develop trustworthy models than for an actual product.

A scenario which Big AI dislodges, or at least unsettles, Big Tech is far from preordained. Exactly where the tech industry and the internet are headed will be hard to discern until it becomes clearer exactly what AI can do, and exactly how it will make money. If AI ends up being nothing more than empty hype, Big AI may not be that big at all. Still, the most successful chatbots are, at least for now, built on top of the data and computing infrastructure that existing Silicon Valley giants have been constructing for years. “There is no AI today without Big Tech,” Kak said. Microsoft, Google, and Amazon control some two-thirds of cloud-computing resources around the world, and Meta has its own formidable network of data centers.

Even if their own programs don’t take off, then, Amazon and Meta are still likely to prosper in a world of generative AI as a result of their large cloud-computing services. Those data centers may also tip the power balance among Big AI toward Microsoft and Google and away from the start-ups. Even if OpenAI or Anthropic find unbelievable success, if their chatbots run on Microsoft’s and Amazon’s cloud services, then Microsoft and Amazon will profit. “It’s hard for me to see any Big Tech companies being dislodged,” Conner said. And if people talk to those chatbots on an iPhone, then Apple isn’t going anywhere either.

Then again, the social-media landscape had its dominant players in the mid-2000s, and instead, Facebook conquered all. Yahoo predated Google by years. Certainly, in the 1980s, nobody thought that some college dropouts could beat IBM in personal computing, yet Apple did just that. “If you bet against the online bookstore, you made the wrong bet,” Wu said, later adding, “Taking a look at the necessary scale now and extrapolating that into the future is a very common error.” More efficient programs, better computers, or efforts to build new data centers could make newer AI companies less dependent on existing cloud computing, for instance. Already, there are whispers that OpenAI is exploring making its own, specialized computer chips for AI. And other start-ups and open-source software, such as from MosaicML and Stability AI, could very well find rapid success and reconfigure the makeup of Big AI as it currently stands.

More likely is not a future in which Big AI takes over the internet entirely or one in which Big Tech sets itself up for another decade of rule, but a future in which they coexist: Google, Amazon, Apple, and the rest of the old guard continue to dominate search and shopping and smartphones and cloud computing, while a related set of companies control the chatbots and other AI models weaving their way into how we purchase, socialize, learn, work, and entertain ourselves. Microsoft offers a lesson in how flexible a tech giant can be: After massive success in the dot-com era, the company fell behind in the age of Apple and Google; it reinvented itself in the 2010s and is now riding the AI wave.

If GOMA has its way, perhaps one day Bing will make your travel plans and suggest convenient restaurants; ChatGPT will do your taxes and give medical advice; Claude will tutor your children; Bard will do your Christmas shopping. A Microsoft or OpenAI AI assistant will have helped code the apps you use for everything, and DALL-E will have helped animate your favorite television show. And all of that will happen via Google Chrome or Safari, on a physical MacBook or a Microsoft Surface or an Android purchased on Amazon. Somehow, Big Tech might be just emerging from its infancy.

The probe into the Taiwanese iPhone maker comes less than three months before Taiwan's presidential election and as Foxconn seeks to expand production outside China.

Apple supplier's shares dropped as much as 3 percent after report by China's state-owned Global Times.

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Most of America’s current political environment can be traced back to one moment: the election of Donald Trump. The bedlam continues—and, to understand the stakes in 2024, imagine how different the world would look if he’d lost.

First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:

Israel is walking into a trap. The progressives who flunked the Hamas test Trump’s only real worldview is pettiness. Computers are learning to smell.

One Single Day

Regret about “what might have been” is not a particularly productive emotion. Counterfactual history, however, is quite useful. I have used it for years in teaching international relations, to help students see that not everything in history is inevitable, that accidents and sudden turns can change the destiny of nations.

Also, as a science-fiction fan, I’m a sucker for the alternate-history genre, the kind of stuff where the Roman empire never rises or America loses the Revolutionary War. I loved NBC’s show Timeless, in which a team—including an academic historian!—has to run around stopping time-terrorists from messing with great events. I even liked Quantum Leap and the idea of one man traveling through the years to fix individual lives rather than alter the grand march of time.

As I continue to watch the GOP flail about—House Republicans have now chosen the execrable Representative Jim Jordan for speaker, replacing Steve Scalise, whose nomination lasted 48 hours—I have been thinking about an alternate history of a United States where Donald Trump lost the 2016 election. I am convinced that the chaos now overtaking much of the American political system was not inevitable: The source of our ongoing political disorder is because of a razor-thin victory in an election in 2016 decided by a relatively tiny number of voters.

I recognize that others will depict Trump’s victory as the inexorable result of long-term trends. Some, perhaps, would identify 1994, when Newt Gingrich proved that political nastiness was an effective campaign strategy, as the Year of No Return, or the election of 2010, when Americans rewarded the flamboyant jerkitude of the Tea Party with seats in Congress.

There’s a lot of truth to such explanations. Long-term trends matter, because over time, they frame debates and shape the choices available to voters. The Republicans have been moving further and further to the right, but I have always argued that 2016 was a fluke, a perfect storm with epochal consequences: The GOP field was fractured and feckless; Trump was a well-known celebrity; the Democrats ran Hillary Clinton instead of supporting Joe Biden for a shot at what would have been Barack Obama’s third term. And it was close, because of the structure of the Electoral College. (The headline of an article by Tina Nguyen, written a few weeks after Trump’s win, captures it nicely: “You Could Fit All the Voters Who Cost Clinton the Election in a Mid-Size Football Stadium.”)

Trump’s win set up a series of cascading failures. Winning in 2016 turbocharged Trump’s claims of leading a movement. His victory encouraged other Republicans to go into survival mode and adopt the protective coloration of Trumpism just to win their primaries, a process that led directly to the crapstorm deluging the House at this very moment. Most Republicans in Congress, as Mitt Romney has told us, hate Trump, and many of them probably wish that someone could jump into the Time Tunnel, go back to 2016, and persuade a few thousand voters in three or four states to come to their senses.

At the least, a Trump loss would have let other Republicans avoid sinking in the populist swamp. Elise Stefanik might be a relentless political opportunist, but without Trump, she and other GOP leaders could have pronounced Trumpian extremism a failure and stayed in something like a center-right lane. On the Earth Where Trump Lost, Fox-addicted voters might still have sent irresponsible performance artists such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz to Congress, but the institutional Republicans would have had every incentive to marginalize them. (Remember, Jordan’s been in the House since 2007, but attaching himself to Trump has helped to put the speaker’s gavel within his reach.)

Had Trump lost, someone might even have bothered to read (and act on) the so-called Republican National Committee “autopsy” of 2013, which argued that the future of the party relies on better appeals to immigrants, women, minorities, and young people. With Trump’s win, that kind of talk went out the window. Instead, the Trump GOP chained itself to the votes of older white Americans—a declining population. Republicans thus had to squeeze more votes out of a shrinking base, and the only way to do that was to build on Trump’s bond with his personality cult and defend him at all costs.

Perhaps most important, a Trump loss would have prevented (or at least delayed) the normalization of violence and authoritarianism in American politics. This is not to say that the Republicans would today be a healthy party, but Trump’s victory confirmed the surrender of the national GOP to a sociopathic autocrat. There’s a difference between a dysfunctional party and a party that has decayed into a mindless countercultural movement, and that rail switch was thrown in November 2016.

An irony in thinking through the 2016 counterfactual case is how many people, including Trump and the herd of sycophants who coalesced around him, would have been better off if Trump had lost. Excellent books by the Washington Post reporter Ben Terris and by my Atlantic colleague Mark Leibovich have described the kind of people who formed up behind Trump, and it is striking how many of them are now facing personal and political ruin. Perhaps someone like Seb Gorka feels that he did well by jumping from academic obscurity to fish-pill sales, but others whose associations with Trump opened the door to greater scrutiny and eventual disaster—think of Matt Schlapp, Peter Navarro, or even the pathetic Rudy Giuliani—would all have been better off had Trump had flamed out.

But no one should wish for the Guardian of Forever to open a gate back to 2016 more than Trump himself. Had he lost, he could have fulfilled what was likely his true wish, to go back to his life in New York as a faux-capitalist fraudster while traveling the country as a pretend president, holding rallies and raking in money from credulous rubes. Instead, he faces humiliation, financial failure, and criminal indictments.

Measures such as impeachment that could have taken Trump out of American political life were destined to fail because of 2016. The 2020 election proved Trump’s toxicity, but by then, too many Republicans had made too many compromises and they could no longer just walk away. Their fates (which for some might include prison) are sealed.

All of this chaos and misery was avoidable—and all of it stemmed from one election and the choices of a tiny number of Americans who could have averted these disasters. As Trump tries to regain his office, voters should remember that nothing is inevitable: Choices matter. Elections matter. A single day can matter.

Related:

What Mitt Romney saw in the Senate The indictment of Donald Trump—and his enablers

Today’s News

Palestinians are fleeing northern Gaza after the Israeli military ordered more than 1 million people to evacuate; the United Nations has called the evacuation “impossible … to take place without devastating humanitarian consequences.” Representative Steve Scalise backed out of the race for speaker of the House yesterday. Jim Jordan has been nominated to succeed him. Kaiser Permanente has reached a tentative deal with its health-care workers after a three-day walkout.

Dispatches

The Books Briefing: Mary Gabriel’s new biography documents Madonna’s indelible position in pop, Emma Sarappo writes.

Explore all of our newsletters here.

More From The Atlantic

The lessons Israel failed to learn from the Yom Kippur War Online betting has gone off the deep end. A uniquely terrible new DEI policy

Culture Break

Read. Rich Paul’s new memoir, Lucky Me, explores the good luck of a hard life.

Watch. Justine Triet’s Palme d’Or–winning film, Anatomy of a Fall (in theaters), is an emotional puzzle that will keep you guessing.

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

Speaking of alternate histories, a year ago, I suggested that you watch Counterpart, which I said then was “the greatest television series that not enough people have seen,” and which I think has been unjustly ignored as one of the greatest series in the history of television.

Counterpart ended its two-season run in 2019 (you can stream it on Apple TV+ and Amazon), so I’ll reveal a bit more of the plot: Scientists in East Germany at the end of the Cold War accidentally open a portal to a parallel universe. It is at first identical to ours in every way, including the people in it, but different choices make them into different people. The show asks disturbing questions about how our lives, and even the fate of the world, can change because of one decision. The lead character, Howard Silk (an amazing performance by J. K. Simmons), often has discussions with his “other,” his counterpart. One Howard is a tough, bitter bastard; the other is a kind and loving husband. When one Howard says that he wonders how things in life could go so wrong, the other Howard says, “Or so right?” Later, Howard says, “We all would like to be the better version of ourselves. I just—I just don’t know if it’s possible.”

The series is full of such moments, along with wonderful little touches of weirdness. (Over in the parallel universe, Prince is still alive.) It might just be a TV series, but even now I still think about it, which is the highest compliment I can pay to good entertainment.

— Tom

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Dollar General has put former CEO Todd Vasos back in the chief’s role again, with board chairman Michael Calbert calling him “the right leader to refocus the Company’s strategic direction and priorities to stabilize the business.” But research suggests that, with some notable exceptions like Steve Jobs at Apple,…

Read more...