A French architect is using a drone to create 6-foot-tall mud-covered domes for emergencies and refugee housing.

The domes are made by attaching bags of hay to a wooden frame and spraying a mixture of clay and fibers onto the structure with a drone.

Architect Stephanie Chaltiel most recently featured one of these domes at the London Design Festival in September. Chaltiel told Business Insider that her team has worked to make the domes sturdier, creating a smaller door and strengthening junctions in the wooden frame. The London dome withstood three days of heavy rain without a problem, she said.

Take a look at how the "Mud Shell" is made.

First, wooden struts are arranged in a dome shape to create the frame.

Hay bags filled with sand are then placed on the frame to cover the exterior.

Spraying the dome with mud makes the structure sturdy and weatherproof, Chaltiel said.

The South is a special place with its own quirks and traditions, but it's especially well-known for having a way with words. 

For instance, down south, "madder than a wet hen" means being angry, over there is a poetic "over yonder," and "bless your heart" can be both an insult and a way to show empathy.

Keep scrolling to see 23 Southern words and expressions you probably won't hear anywhere else.

Southerners address a group with, "y'all."

"Y'all" is typical Southern slang, but it's also a proper contraction (you all = y'all). Southerners say this word all the time.

"It doesn’t amount to a hill of beans" means that something isn't worth much.

Apparently, this expression entered the mainstream at the end of the film "Casablanca," when Humphrey Bogart says to Ingrid Bergman, "Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

"Bless your heart" shows sympathy... for the most part.

"Bless your heart" has many different meanings in the South. Sometimes it's used as a passive aggressive insult (a nice way for a polite Southerner to tell you that you're wrong), and sometimes it's used as an exclamation. The importance is the tone used. 

• Pointless meetings are killers for productivity and can annoy employees in an office.
• The executives of the startup Beeswax, all former Google execs, say they've learned how to keep meetings streamlined and efficient.
• Experts agree that keeping meetings short and small are critical to keeping them on track.

A pointless, never-ending meeting is a great way to kill productivity in the workplace.

The three founders of the ad-tech startup Beeswax seem to get that. The trio, all former Google ad executives, say their approach to meetings is a little different than how it was at their former company.

"We're all thoughtful about not having a proliferation of meetings because one thing we all felt in our previous careers is that there can be lots of redundant meetings," Beeswax chief product officer Shamim Samadi told Business Insider.

"So we try to have folks do the thinking and write things out prior to the meeting if they can, and then have a real focus, a discussion with a clear objective that we want to get to at the end of the meeting. We only hold meetings when we sort of have those things in place."

For each of the executives, founding Beeswax in 2015 was their first time running a startup. The Manhattan-based company makes software that helps marketers bid for ads in real time, and in three years has grown to 55 employees.

Managing a team that size has forced the executives to adapt quickly, chief technical officer Ram Rengaswamy told Business Insider.

"We've done this long enough that there are certain things that we understand about the business well enough that we can make decisions faster," Rengaswamy said. "That's one thing that I've noticed in our meetings: They're very focused and drive towards an outcome. So that's something that I've seen myself improve on."

Experts everywhere preach the same approach to meetings as Beeswax.

The Harvard Business Review reported in 2015 that bigger meetings tended to be less effective than smaller ones. One expert told the Review that meetings needed to be limited to as few as four or five people to ensure everyone got a chance to speak in a 60-minute session.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos had a similar approach: His "two pizza" rule says you should never hold a meeting where two pizzas couldn't feed the entire group.

Another executive told The New York Times that setting a clear agenda for meetings was the critical element to avoid wasting employees' time.

"If I don't have an agenda in front of me, I walk out,” Annette Catino, former CEO of the QualCare Alliance Network, told The Times. "Give me an agenda or else I'm not going to sit there, because if I don't know why we're in the meeting, and you don't know why we're there, then there's no reason for a meeting."

SEE ALSO: 3 former Google execs explain why they left a company where just about everyone wants to work

DON'T MISS: 3 Googlers-turned-startup-founders have been using the same old-school tool since their first day on their own

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I woke up at 4:30 a.m. for a week like a Navy SEAL

• Dr. Gary Shilling says there is nothing on the immediate horizon that would trigger a correction but he warns that Fed tightening has caused a recession 11 out of 12 times in the post World War period.
• The Fed doesn't understand why low unemployment hasn't pushed up inflation, says Shilling. He says most of them are economists and are too theoretical. They don't understand that the Phillips curve has broken. 
• Shilling says that when it comes to trade, the buyer has the upper hand when there's plenty of supply. And in the scenario of the global trade war, the US is the buyer.
• Investors should be long the dollar, according to Shilling. He says, "Whenever there's trouble in the world, even if we start it, the dollar benefits because it's the safe haven."

Dr. Gary Shilling, the president of A. Gary Shilling & Co., spoke to Business Insider editor-at-large Sara Silverstein about the the state of the market and the economy. Following is a transcript of the video.

Sara Silverstein: I'm here with legendary economist, Gary Shilling, and President of A. Gary Shilling & Co. So what can you tell me about where US markets are right now, where equities are and do you think they're headed for a downturn?

Gary Shilling: Well, you could say they're expensive but you could have said that last year and the year before and the year before and the year before. I mean, obviously you have runaway on the upside and you have stock market growing much faster than the economy and sooner or later, that won't last, but you know, forever is a long time, you don't know how long it's going to last.

There's nothing on the immediate horizon that says that you've got a problem and what usually happens is bear markets are associated with recessions, and they're caused by two things. One is the Fed tightens, they never intend to precipitate a recession, but by my count, 11 out of 12 times in the post World War period they've gotten a recession, the only soft landing was in the mid '90s. Now the Fed is tightening, they're selling off their portfolio, raising the funds rate, but there's enough — there's so much excess liquidity in the system. I think it'd take a couple of years for them to do the job.

The other cause of recessions in bear markets is a shock, a financial shock and that's what we had in the late '90s with the dot-com explosion, and then of course, the mid 2000s with the collapse in subprime mortgages. If you look around right now, there's nothing that's really that big that sort of just stands out and says, "This is just cruising for a bruising." But I think if there is a candidate, it's probably what's happening in emerging markets. They have huge debts, dollar-denominated debts and with the dollar soaring, and that I think is a very key factor. It takes more and more of their local currency to service those debts. Also, most commodities are priced in dollars, so as the dollar goes up, it takes more of their local currency to buy their commodity imports. So if there is a crisis coming, I think it's in these countries, and of course, you see Argentina and Turkey as the standouts in terms of big problems.

Silverstein: And what sort of indicators can investors look at to see if trouble is coming from one of these places?

Shilling: Well, the big question right now in these developing countries is the risk of contagion. I mean, so far you've got Argentina has the usual problems, Venezuela is a basket case — I mean that economy is barely functioning, you wonder why they don't have some kind of revolution — and Turkey where the president is really — well, he really hyped the economy with a lot of spending financed by hard currency borrowing and now they're dealing with that problem. But if that — those things spread, if you go back to the late 1990s, you had the currency collapse in Thailand and then it spread to other East Asian countries and then to Latin America, Argentina, Brazil and all the way to Russia.

It's the contagion which is the issue, and that's something that's really hard to predict. You just have to keep your eye on it, and if you wake up one day and find out that people are retreating.

Now people are — they're not putting money into emerging markets. You look at mutual funds flows and they've virtually ceased. Last year, tremendous rush in there. People thought this was a great place to invest, developed world didn't look all that strong, I'll put it there. And they forgot that these economies really don't grow on their own, they're dependent on exports, they're dependent on borrowing, and they are obviously not sustainable. But as they say, if you start to see massive outflows of mutual funds and ETFs that are invested in emerging markets, I think that's probably as good as indicators as any that the end is near.

Silverstein: And you said 11 out of 12 times Fed tightening leads to a recession?

Shilling: Right.

Silverstein: So how is the Fed doing so far and what can they do to be the one out of 12 times?

Shilling: Well, the Fed is moving very slowly. They obviously are concerned about upsetting the applecart and they— so they are not only raising interest rates, but now for the first time ever, they're selling off a portfolio. They've never had that huge portfolio, the result of quantitative easing after bailing out Wall Street, so they've got both those issues and as they say in the past, they haven't had much success in soft landings, when it was just raising interest rates and they've had experience using interest rates as a policy instrument for literally a century. Now they're — not too much luck with that and now they're adding selling off the portfolio, so I think you can pretty well say that in time, they'll do the job, but they're moving slowly, they're moving cautiously. And of course, one of the interesting things is you're not getting the rise in long-term interest rates that they probably would expect.

There is a question of wages, they're not going up. I think there are a lot of good reasons for that, but it isn't the kind of world that the Fed is interested in. They have— now, Powell is a different animal. He's not an economist and I'm glad that — I'm a PhD economist, and I'm glad that there's somebody else other than an economist at the helm there, because they tend to be very theoretical. They believe for example in the Phillips curve. They can't understand why the low unemployment rate hasn't pushed up inflation.

Well, there are a lot of reasons for that. You know, you're getting a shift in employment, the jobs are created in low paid areas, like hospitality and retail, and so on and so forth. You've got globalization, probably the most important development in the last three decades on a worldwide basis, which is holding down wages, decimated manufacturing jobs in this country, there a lot of reasons. But these Fed economists— you know, the Fed, a lot of board members and economists there, they're scratching their— "Wait a minute, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming." Well, you know it's coming but when?

Silverstein: Is the Phillips curve model broken? Is it not — no longer relevant?

Shilling: Yeah, it really is and I think one of the things they're just not concentrating on — I'm playing my song here and I'm a bias.I mean, in 1981, when the yield on the long-term — on the long bond, the 30-year treasury was 12.6%, I said we're entering a bond rally of a lifetime and since then that yield has dropped to 3%, and as a result, long treasuries have outperformed the S&P on a total return basis by six times in the interim.

So I'm very much—and the whole basis of that forecast was the idea that inflation was on the way out and I think that's the thing that the Fed just doesn't understand: that we're in a basically— a deflationary world. You look at the excess supply that's opened up with globalization, you look at the downward pressure on wages, I mentioned a minute ago. There a lot of factors here. Look at what's happened with the Uberization of the would if you will, where people are working part-time. They're trading off income and benefits and so on for flexibility in their pay and — you've got a lot of strong deflationary pressures and of course, protectionism simply adds to that and I just don't think the Fed is comprehending the strength of that.

Silverstein: Do you think our inflation measures are incorrect, the current ones we're using?

Shilling: Well, they're correct for what they measure. They're correct for what they measure and of course, there's always this attempt to show that inflation is higher than you think it is and everybody thinks it is. I mean, you or I pay more for any product, and we say, "It's the devil personified." If we pay less, "Oh, I'm a great shopper. I'm really a good bargainer." You know, people are very unrealistic about that, and of course, there's all kinds of alternative measures of inflation, including the Fed has one where they sort of chop off the extremes and look at the middle or some of them are concentrated on the most frequently purchased items, like bread and gasoline and so on and so forth.

But you know, the numbers for what they measure are— I think, are correct, but that doesn't mean that they are going to have the kind of relationships that the Fed thinks they should have with the employment.

I mean, you know, one of the reasons the unemployment rate is low, is you had so many people drop out of the labor force. Well, a lot of those people, the postwar babies are retiring. Okay, they left, but now, and there were a lot of other people who left. The younger people stayed in school. They said, "I'll get more education, better chance at a job." And people in between, the postwar babies and these young people, they just said, "There are no jobs available."

Well, what's happened now? The younger people are graduating from college, they're coming back in. People in the middle, they're coming off the bench. You look at numbers back in June, the unemployment rate went down. Why? Now because fewer jobs, there's more people entering the labor force, they heard jobs are available, they rushed in.

And the interesting thing is on the top end, people over 65, their labor force participation rate, the number of people that are out there looking at jobs or employed, is increasing faster than that population. That population is growing very rapidly with the retiring postwar babies. So you have some really interesting dynamics in the labor force, which I think have a lot to do with the restraint on wages.

Silverstein: So are wages going to go up?

Shilling: Yeah, they're going up but they're not going up much faster than inflation right now. And I don't see any reason why that's going to change anytime soon. Now of course, that's a very important development, because I think that is what has really spawned populism in this country. Populism, a lot of other areas, of course have it, but I think that's what got Trump elected. Because in the US and indeed all of G7, the major developed countries, they've had literally no growth in inflation-adjusted wages, no growth in purchasing power for over a decade and so what happens? You know, people are mad as hell. They're just not going to take it anymore. You remember the movie"Network"?

And I think that's what got Trump elected, and of course that's what he's playing to. Now he blames this on immigrants and imports. It's not that simple, in my view. Globalization has a lot to do with — it's the other factors I mentioned earlier, but it is a fact and I don't see that changing demonstrably. Unless we put a complete tariff wall around the country, I don't think it's going to happen.

I mean, look at China. China is a big target. They're the bad guys and you know, they have cheated by international rules, at least as we interpret them, but what's happening? The low-end manufacturing is moving to Vietnam, Bangladesh, Pakistan — and of course, the 800-pound gorilla is India. Boy, India, the population's still increasing and those guys get their act together and I think they are — they're going to outdistance China.

So the idea that this whole thing is going to change is just not relevant and of course in the meanwhile, you've had a huge change in technology. A lot of people who are not adapted at today's technology are left behind. And this has happened a lot faster than normal. That always happens. Some people ever since industrialization started in the late 1700s in England and New England, people's jobs have disappeared.

Now an interesting example that the word saboteur — saboteur that comes from sabot. Sabot were wooden shoes that the early weavers would grind into the power looms to wreck the machinery, because they were putting them out of business and that's how the word saboteur came from sabot.

So there's always been people that have been left out, but the thing is that industrialization as technology, if you will, has created more jobs than it's destroyed. People who build the machines, cheaper products, more consumers, more demand, maintenance, developing new technologies, but globalization has speeded up that process and you sort of got this big gap and it's really— I think from here on, we've exported just about all the manufacturing, this country that we can. We're down to irreducible minimums.

You go back to the early '90s. About 20% of the labor force was in manufacturing. Now it's 12% but it's leveled off, so that process is probably over. But the problem is that a lot of people simply have not adapted to the new technology, and of course, a lot of the jobs being created require more than just brawn or some guy twisting on bolts in an auto plant.

Silverstein: And what do you think about Trump's trade war? What's the outcome going to be?

Gary Shilling: Here's the point that I continue to make. When you've got plenty of supply in the world, and I think you do — plenty of industrial capability, plenty of raw materials and so on — it's the buyer that has the upper hand not the seller. The buyer has the ultimate power and who's the buyer? US is the buyer, China is the seller. And besides that, if you say, if we weren't buying all those consumer goods from China, and you and I enjoy them, they're cheap, they're great. But if we weren't buying them, where would China sell them? They have no other place to sell them, and in the meanwhile, China's growth is slowing.

They've got a problem of huge debt expansion they're trying to curb, they're trying to deal with a shadow lending — a shadow banking system and so on and so forth. China isn't going to collapse obviously, but I think in this trade war, that the US has the upper hand.

If you look at how this whole thing developed, after World War II, the rest of the world was pretty much in ashes and we were promptly into the Cold War, so I think that implicitly or explicitly, we basically said, "We will let Japan and Europe export freely into the US," because that gave them the growth to revive in a postwar era and that was cheaper for us than garrisoning even more US troops around the world and having more border wars. Well, that was fine, but that era's over, and globalization has replaced it, so it's an entirely different scene, and I think as a result, you have this situation where China — China, you know, grew basically through exports and they went to Europe and North America.

But you know, they did it with some rather underhanded — we'd let them into the World Trade Center in 2001 and they basically have not fulfilled their promises, they have not opened up their technology, they're not opening up to our investments, they steal our technology, they demand tech transfers for companies that want to operate in China and so on. And so you've got a situation now where China is basically playing by the old game, when everybody could export to the US, but now when you see the unemployment problem, no growth and purchasing power for the average guy — the non-supervisory and production employees — no growth in real incomes for a decade and that has changed the whole scene and I think that's really what has gotten Trump elected and he's basically saying, "Hey wait a minute. We've got the upper hand here and we're going to go ahead."

I mean, people say nobody wins trade wars. Yeah, in the short-run you don't, but in the long-run, if it's a matter of changing what has been the world exporting to the US and the US buying it and what do we do? We give them paper. That's why they own half of our treasuries. I think that is being reversed and in the long-run, the US will be better off.Now, they could go to the mat. Xi, who is basically the president for life in China, and Trump, he won't be around forever of course, but they could go to the mat and you could get a really nasty, all-out trade war and a serious global recession. I'm not predicting that. I think they probably will settle and China will begrudgingly give ground. They'll import more US goods, they'll ease up on required tech transfers, steal less of it. They're not going to change their views entirely, but I think under pressure, they probably will give way and we'll end up winning the trade war.

Silverstein: So if you could give me one piece of investment advice for people who are looking at the markets today, what would it be?

Shilling: It would be to be long on the dollar. Now I know that's not going out and buying a stock — there are exchange-traded funds on the dollar — but I think the dollar is going to— it's really been declining since 1985.

Beginning of this year, I think it's turned around and it is a safe haven. You have all the problems with the developing world, protectionism. And it's interesting. Whenever there's trouble in the world, even if we start it, the dollar benefits because it's the safe haven. It's where people want to be. So I think that being in the dollar, and you have to look at that broadly, because companies that suffer when the dollar is strong— I mean, exporters suffer and people in the supply chain can be affected, positively or negatively. But I would look at the dollar as the overarching theme and then look at the implications of that.

Silverstein: And biggest mistake, you think, investors broadly are making?

Shilling: Probably the biggest mistake investors have been making is betting that this economy was going to give out sooner than it has, it won't grow forever, but it has continued to grow and I think there's been probably too much pessimism. Of course, the problem is when pessimism turns to activism, then the end is near.

Join the conversation about this story »

• The number of marketers with in-house agencies has accelerated over the past five years, a new study by the Association of National Advertisers has found.
• A whopping 78% of ANA members reported having some form of an in-house agency in 2018.
• In-house agencies are not only burgeoning but getting more specialized, with such entities handling everything from content marketing and video production to data analytics in-house.
• Still, the need for agencies does not seem to be completely gone, with 90% of respondents still working with external agencies in some capacity or another.

It's not a great time to be an ad agency.

An increasing number of brands have been taking their ad-buying production capabilities in-house over the past few years, and the trend shows no signs of slowing down.

In fact, the number of marketers with in-house agencies has only accelerated, growing substantially over the past five years, according to a new study by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) conducted in August among 412 brands.

A whopping 78% of ANA members reported having some form of an in-house agency in 2018, with nearly half of the respondents (44%) setting the agencies up in the past five years. In comparison, 58% and 44% of them had set up internal shops in 2013 and 2008 respectively.

As brands seek greater cost-effectiveness, transparency and control over customer data, they have been setting up their own internal operations focusing on a variety of services, including strategy, creative and media planning, and buying for both traditional and digital media.

Verizon, JPMorgan Chase, Chobani and Booking.com are among a suite of brands that have gone down this route.

"Traditional agencies are becoming increasingly challenged as marketers move more work in-house while encouraging their external agencies to provide differentiated services and increased value," ANA CEO Bob Liodice said. "We expect the current trends to continue, with accelerated client movement to in-house agencies."

In-house agencies are getting more sophisticated

As more brands bring ad work in house, the work is getting far more specialized.

There has been "a marked increase" in the amount of specialty services offered by in-house agencies in the past five years. For example:

• 75% of respondents said that they handle content marketing in-house, compared to 34% in 2013.
• Similarly, 59% of brands who responded said they handle data analytics internally, up from 42% in 2013.
• 79% said they have in-house video production capabilities, with almost half (49%) establishing these production capabilities within the past five years.
• 55% said that they handle at least some degree of media planning and/or buying in-house, while 30% of respondents said they had in-house programmatic capabilities.
• Brands are also bringing several specialty services that have cropped up recently in-house, such as influencer marketing (39%), experiential marketing (38%), and commercial production (22%).

Verizon set up an internal creative shop to make its brand narrative and experience more consistent.

"Having a consistent voice, look, and feel is crucial to the customer experience across all of our touchpoints — mobile, digital, retail," Andrew McKechnie, Verizon's chief creative officer, said.

While for gaming company, EA Sports, bringing media buying in-house was necessary to exert better control over its advertising.

"We have more flexibility with how campaigns are set up, managed, and measured, and are better able to align them with the goals of our business," Belinda Smith, its director of global media activation, said. "We also have a better line of sight into whom in the supply chain we’re paying for what, and if those services are worth it to us."

But external ad agencies may still have a need to fill

To be sure, while it may be getting harder for ad agencies to sustain their businesses, there still seems to be a need for them. According to the survey, 90% of respondents continue to work with external agencies in some capacity or another.

This is because it hasn't been all smooth sailing for brands' internal agencies. Some of their biggest challenges are related to managing growth, workload and resources efficiently, according to the report.

A solid 90% of respondents said that the workload of their in-house agencies had increased in the past year, with 65% saying that it had increased "a lot."

Beyond bandwidth, sometimes the in-house agencies may not have the necessary capabilities and skill sets internally either, leading to the work going to an external agency.

And sometimes things don't always go as planned. Vodafone, for example, is having second thoughts about taking programmatic ad buying in-house, Digiday reported last week. The company had announced that it would buy most of its online ads itself three months ago, and while it has started to buy its own search and social media ads, it continues to rely on its agency for display ads.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's what caffeine does to your body and brain

• Apple's earnings could be impacted this year if the weak demand in China continues, according to Goldman Sachs.
• "There are multiple signs of rapidly slowing consumer demand in China which we believe could easily affect Apple’s demand there this Fall," Goldman Sachs analyst Rod Hall wrote.
• Watch Apple trade in real time here.

Apple's earnings could be impacted this year if the weak demand in China continues, according to Goldman Sachs.

"There are multiple signs of rapidly slowing consumer demand in China which we believe could easily affect Apple’s demand there this Fall," according to a recent note from Goldman Sachs analyst Rod Hall. Apple shares were down 1.5 % on Monday.

China's macro data suggests the economy continued to slow as the Purchasing Managing Index dropped to 50.8 in September from 51.3 in August, the weakest result since July 2017. "We also believe that smartphone unit volume deteriorated by ~15% Y/Y in Q3 which is unheard of in a typically seasonally strong Q3," Hall wrote in a note sent out to his clients on Monday. 

Hall has a "neutral" rating for Apple with a price target of $240 — an upside of 8.1% to the current market price.

He estimates Apple will produce earnings of $11.78 per share for the current fiscal year and $13.77 for 2019. Hall predicts that China will account for approximately 16% of the 80 million iPhone units expected to be sold in the December quarter. "Our 13m unit forecast implies that Apple will continue to lose share in the high-end smartphone category (to 30% in Q4’18 from 32% in Q4’17) though it also assumes demand in that category is unaffected by macro," he wrote in a note on Monday.

However, he believes there is a possibility that the Cupertino-based company could benefit from the larger handsets of the new iPhone XS Max and iPhone XR. "We believe Apple will be able to participate in this growth category of smartphones starting in Q4’18," he said. 

"This could at least partially offset negative macro indications though we doubt it completely solves the problem if Chinese consumer demand continues to be weak as we move through the critical holiday buying season."

Apple shares were up 26.7% so far this year.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

• Rumors circulated this month that Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson had run afoul of the Trump administration over the creation of the Space Force.
• But Rep. Mike Rogers says his name was used as part of a "shot across the bow" to Wilson and that she has fallen into line.
• Rogers, a main proponent of the new force, says it's needed to better work with private industry and to counter Russia and China.

Rumors that President Donald Trump was considering firing Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson over resistance to the new Space Force were "a shot across the bow" to the service chief, according to Alabama Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, who has backed the new force.

Several sources told Foreign Policy this month that Trump was weighing Wilson's removal after the midterm elections in response to what the White House viewed as a campaign against the nascent Space Force, the creation of which Trump announced earlier this year.

Purported resistance from Wilson — who wrote a memo in September saying the force would cost $13 billion over its first five years — reportedly angered both Trump and Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan, a former Boeing executive who is second in command at the Pentagon.

Trump 'sees her as troublesome and ineffective'

Wilson, an Air Force Academy graduate who served in Europe during the 1980s and was on the National Security Council staff under former President George H.W. Bush, was a Republican congresswoman from New Mexico from 1998 to 2009.

The Trump administration picked her as Air Force secretary in January 2017, and she was confirmed by the Senate in May that year. But it was Trump's June 2018 announcement that the Space Force would become the US's sixth military branch that reportedly set Wilson at odds with the White House.

The administration came to believe that Wilson was "trying to undermine this part of the president's agenda from within," a source told Foreign Policy.

"Some senior officials know how to disagree with [the president] without being disagreeable to him. Heather Wilson hasn't managed to do that," an administration official told Foreign Policy. "Her opposition to the Space Force has grated on him and I think he permanently sees her as troublesome and ineffective now."

Rogers, who chairs the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, promoted the Space Force to Trump and his advisers for months prior to a March 2017 speech in which Trump said he was considering it.

After that speech, Rogers told The Los Angeles Times that he called Trump and said it was "something we have to do" and a "national security imperative"— to which Trump reportedly replied, "I'm all in."

'A shot across the bow, and my name was part of the signal'

In an interview with the Opelika-Auburn News published on Sunday, Rogers indicated he was involved in messaging to Wilson about the White House's displeasure with her position on the Space Force.

"The White House found out she was working against it," said Rogers, who is running for reelection in November. "It was a shot across the bow, and my name was part of the signal to her."

The Alabaman congressman, whose constituency includes Huntsville, which is home to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, and research hubs like Auburn University, was mentioned as a potential replacement should Trump oust Wilson.

But he told the Opelika-Auburn News he believed Wilson had gotten the message and was more supportive. Moreover, he told the president he believed he could do more to support the Space Force from Congress, where he aims to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Rogers pushed the Space Force as a separate force because he believed the Air Force, which he says is largely run by pilots focused on Earth, would put little emphasis on space operations if the Space Force was added to that branch.

He has also touted it as a way for the Pentagon to open a direct line to the private aerospace industry and keep pace with its work.

"If people could fully understand the threat we have today from Russia and China, they would understand how serious this is and how important it is to protect our space assets," Rogers told the Opelika-Auburn News. The severity and scale of the threats, he said, will "shake the partisanship right out of you."

SEE ALSO: 71 years ago, Chuck Yeager smashed the sound barrier — here's what it was like on the famous flight

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What if the most powerful nuclear bomb exploded in space

• Khabib Nurmagomedov has been busy since defeating Conor McGregor to retain the UFC lightweight title.
• In an interview with Russian media, Nurmagomedov reportedly said the UFC may have helped organize McGregor's bizarre bus attack earlier in the year.
• According to a translation of the interview, Nurmagomedov says he was suspicious that McGregor and his team knew exactly where to go and had brought cameras.

During their recent match, Khabib Nurmagomedov forced Conor McGregor to tap out to retain his UFC lightweight title in the biggest fight in the history of the company.

Since then, Nurmagomedov has made the most of his star power, using his newfound leverage with the company to defend one of his teammates, enjoying a visit with Vladimir Putin, and even teasing a move to WWE.

But Nurmagomedov's most compelling interview may have been saved for Russian media. During a 90-minute interview with Russian station Channel 1, Nurmagomedov reportedly went into detail about his training and weight cut, and made an explosive accusation towards UFC, stating that he believed the company at least knew about and possibly helped organize Conor McGregor's infamous bus attack.

Here's what Nurmagomedov said, according to a translation by MMA Mania:

"When I think back there are so many questions I don't have the answer to, did they do it all on purpose? In my personal opinion, I feel like the bus incident was organized with UFC's help. I can't accuse them, but I would give it 70% that they did it. I wanted to get off the bus and all the other fighters on the bus confirmed this in their interviews, and all the managers as well."

"It all happened in a minute in a half, two minutes max," Khabib continued. "He's there with his cameras and his PR team with him shooting. An important point: the Barclays Center is a very big arena, a 20,000 person arena, but he knew where we were exactly. How could they have known? And how did they enter the arena with a gang of 20, 30 men? Come on."

"Conor has nothing to do with this media event and has a gang with him but these jokers lead him and everyone to the elevator where our bus is? I'm an athlete, but I'm also educated. My brain works pretty well for 15 years of fighting. I haven't taken many shots to the head so I still have brains."

Nurmagomedov cited the bus attack as one of the inciting incidents for his post-fight jump into the crowd and was clearly an event that left an impression on him.

For now, though, it seems everything worked out for the best for Nurmagomedov — he's the lightweight champion and can get a big-money rematch if he ever feels like fighting McGregor again.

You can read more from Nurmagomedov's interview as translated by MMA Mania here.

SEE ALSO: Khabib Nurmagomedov claims WWE wants to recruit him just one day after he threatened to quit the UFC forever

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What it takes to be an NFL referee

• As Business Insider's international correspondent, I've spent the past six months traveling through Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Greece, Israel, and Russia, among other places.
• I use a ton of different apps to make travel as efficient and seamless as possible, but, by far the most essential is Google Translate.
• Google Translate has a number of features that are tailor-made for travelers like its camera function, which translate signs instantly, and "conversation mode," which allows you to speak directly into the microphone for real-time translated conversations.

As Business Insider's international correspondent, I've spent the past six months traveling through Hong Kong, China, Singapore, Greece, Israel, and Russia, among other places.

That's a lot of difficult languages to understand. It may surprise you, but I'm only adept at speaking one language: English. That's not for lack of trying — apologies to my high school Italian teacher.

Nothing can substitute true fluency when traveling, but new and improving technologies are getting closer to bridging the gap. It may not be sexy, but Google Translate is the one app I can't live without.

Since it was introduced in 2006, Translate has become an indispensable part of the internet. While many may take to using it to complete their foreign-language homework (again, apologies to my high school Italian teacher), it is integrated into so much of what we do, from Gmail to Chrome and elsewhere. It effortlessly erases borders of understanding as one navigates across the internet from Spanish newspaper to Chinese e-commerce site.

In recent years, Translate's mobile app, which was first released in 2010, has worked a similar magic in the real world. Google has introduced new features designed with travelers in mind and developed unprecedented translation accuracy thanks to Google's game-changing "neural machine translation" technology.

Translate now has more than 500 million monthly users and translates over 143 billion words a day.

Earlier this year, Google Translate became the story of the 2018 World Cup in Russia. The service's use spiked 30% in Russia during the World Cup, according to Google. A Spanish journalist used the app to ask a player on France's team a question after the team dictated that all questions be in French.

While I was there, fans from all over the world were holding up smartphones and tablets to each other to carry out conversations from Russian to English, from Spanish to Portuguese, and Arabic to French, and every other language pair you can imagine. I used it to translate signs written in the Cyrllic alphabet, talk with taxi drivers, figure out what I had just ordered, and read museum placards.

It was far from the first time Translate has gotten me out of a jam.

While visiting Japan last year, I became acutely aware of how amazing the app's camera function— which can scan and translate text in real time — is.

I can usually get the gist of signs and labels in Romance language-speaking countries like Spain or France, thanks to my mediocre Italian proficiency. Trying to get the gist of Japanese Kanji characters doesn't exactly work.

But, as I walked through a supermarket in Tokyo's Shibuya neighborhood and encountered unfamiliar food product after another, the camera translated each item before my eyes. It was like putting on glasses for the first time.

But that only scratches the surface of the app's potential.

In recent years, Translate has added a "conversation mode" which allows a user to speak directly into the microphone for a real-time translation into the language of one's choosing. Then the respondent can speak into the same microphone and translate their speech the other way. The translations can sometimes be clunky,  but it is more than sufficient to engage in a real conversation with someone who doesn't speak your language.

I make a habit of talking to taxi drivers when traveling. And not just for recommendations; I ask them about their country. Most have something insightful to say. Prior to Translate, I had to hope that whoever's car I got in had more than a tenuous grasp of English. In many countries, that's rarely the case.

Some taxi drivers have wised up to Translate. In Athens, I met a taxi driver named Ilias who always keeps an iPad open to the app on his dashboard. Eager to talk to an American, he began translating himself as soon I entered the cab. Pretty soon we were going back and forth about Greece's economic crisis and its potential solutions. I learned so much from him that it inspired this story on Greece's situation. 

Probably the best aspect of the app is that it works seamlessly offline.. So long as you download the requisite language pack, the app will be able to do everything from conversation mode to the camera function without internet, which is essential because roaming charges add up quick while traveling.

While you can't download every language, there are 60-plus languages for instant offline translation.

And earlier this month, Google announced that Translate had added a number of new languages for full offline use, including Arabic, Thai, Vietnamese, Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, Kannada, Malayalam, Marthi, Nepali, Punjabi, Tamil, and Telugu. See the full list of available languages here »

Download Google Translate »

SEE ALSO: I've been traveling the world for 6 months, and these are the apps I can't live without

DON'T MISS: I'm taking a trip around the world with only a carry-on suitcase — here's everything I packed

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when you sleep in your contacts

Warning: There are potential spoilers ahead for "The Walking Dead."

"The Walking Dead" has a huge ensemble cast of characters trying to survive the zombie apocalypse. With more new characters joining the cast this season, you can prepare to say goodbye to a few longtime favorites.

Season nine already launched with the death of a big character, and that won't be the only one we'll see this season. Norman Reedus, who plays fan-favorite Daryl Dixon, recently told Entertainment Weekly fans should expect to see some "big deaths" as the season unfolds. 

Who will live and who will die? In the comics, the next set of villains enter the scene in an unforgettable way, and we're expecting to see a lot of the same play out on screen. 

INSIDER put together a guide of which members of the Hilltop, Kingdom, Sanctuary, Alexandria, and beyond are most likely to be zombie chow or be killed in the episodes to come. 

10. Ezekiel — 30%

The first two episodes of season nine have been pushing the Ezekiel/Carol romance really hard. It would be heart-wrenching to see Carol get ready for a proposal or a wedding only to have it all taken away from her. 

When the next set of villains, the Whisperers, arrive in the comics, they behead a number of major characters from the comics and place their heads on spikes along a border. Ezekiel is among the most prominent and shocking of those deaths.

Creator Robert Kirkman said at New York Comic Con we'll see "some super creepy, really intense moments" from the comics. Will he meet the same fate or will another character receive his comic death? We're hoping the king sticks around with two other big departures set for this season.

9. Michonne — 35%

Corey Hawkins isn't the only one who made it big enough to leave "The Walking Dead." Danai Gurira made a huge splash in theaters in both "Black Panther" and "Avengers: Infinity War" this year. Both movies crossed $1 billion at the box office and you know Gurira is heading back to the Marvel Cinematic Universe for next summer's "Avengers 4,"which just wrapped filming.

But honestly, if Lincoln is leaving the show and there's a possibility for Lauren Cohan to leave if her ABC show takes off as well, how long do you expect Gurira to stick around? It will be tough when Marvel, and possibly others, have their eyes on her.

8. Rick — 40%

Andrew Lincoln confirmed he'll leave "The Walking Dead" this season, but we're not sure how the sheriff will part ways with the AMC series. There are multiple ways Rick could depart, but even fans are split over whether or not he'll get killed off the show or wander off to greener pastures.

While the season's official trailer teased Rick walking with a bloody boot, we have a feeling that might be a red herring. Creator Robert Kirkman promised us a "cool" way for Rick to leave the series. Would it be cool to just kill off your show's lead character a short season after killing off his son? We don't think so.

If AMC is planning on making more shows and a potential movie in "The Walking Dead" universe, you definitely want Lincoln available.

• Wealthy families are paying baby nurses up to $800 a day to tend to their newborn babies and teach them to sleep through the night.
• Baby nurses work 22-hour days and don't take a day off until three or four weeks after the baby is born.
• They make between $600 and $750 a day on average, and sometimes up to $800.
• Parents are keeping baby nurses for much longer than in the past, up to nine months instead of one to three, according to Seth Norman Greenberg, vice president of domestic staffing firm Pavillion Agency.

An ultra-wealthy business magnate may have no trouble managing a staff of hundreds of people, but getting a baby to sleep? That's another story. 

More and more affluent families are paying up to $800 a day to hire baby nurses to help them care for their newborns and teach the babies to sleep through the night, according to Seth Norman Greenberg, the vice president and marketing director of Pavillion Agency, a domestic staffing agency in New York City.

"I spoke to someone the other day who said, 'My husband's a titan, he manages 10,000 people, and he can't put our kid to sleep,'" Greenberg told Business Insider.

In such cases, a baby nurse is the ideal solution.

These baby nurses — who are not always necessarily registered nurses — work 22-hour shifts and don't take a single day off until the baby is three or four weeks old. Their average rate is between $600 and $750 a day for one baby and can be as high as $800 a day. For twins and triplets, the rate can be even higher.

Pavillion Agency, which matches candidates to high-earning families for roles including nannies, private chefs, personal assistants, housekeepers, butlers, and more, caters to families that can be classified as "ultra-wealthy," Greenberg told Business Insider. "Clients can be in any industry, from business titans, financial, manufacturing, tech— and then some people that are just retired," he said. 

"All of these very successful people are able to be successful because their homes are run," Greenberg said.

Parents are increasingly seeing the value of keeping baby nurses for longer periods, according to Greenberg.

"Whereas most of my baby nurse cases in the past, up until a few years ago, would last between one and three months, now they're lasting between six and nine months," Greenberg told Business Insider. "And the salaries have gone up. ... So the salaries go up and people are keeping them for longer."

Baby nurses usually work three to four weeks straight and then take a few days off, according to Greenberg. After that, they generally take a day off every two weeks.

Most baby nurses start out as either nannies, RNs, or LPNs, Greenberg said. They're often mothers themselves. In general, they are CPR certified and stay up to date with the latest newborn philosophies and standards.

Baby nurses help teach parents techniques related to bathing, bedtimes routines, feeding, diapering and dressing the baby, maintaining the baby's room, and much more. They are trained to deal with colic, gas, and excessive crying, according to Pavillion's website. Some can act as lactation consultants and are trained in umbilical and circumcision care.

"Some baby nurses enjoy working for part of the year (six months) and travel and do other things throughout the year," Greenberg said. "Others have a brief rest period and start working right away."

SEE ALSO: Forget teaching 2nd languages — wealthy New Yorkers now want their kids' nannies to do their hair, drive Zambonis, and give them massages

DON'T MISS: CEOs, athletes, and celebs are paying $10,000 for this 6-hour physical exam that includes a massage and 2 meals in an ultra-luxurious, spa-like NYC facility

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when you sleep in your contacts

Halloween comes once a year, and it's the perfect time to show off your pup's festive looks and adorable costumes. That is, if your dog is comfortable wearing them.

Here are 20 funny and adorable costume ideas for dogs. 

You're a wizard, Harry Pupper.

Show your love for "Harry Potter" by having your dog sport a wizard costume. There are pre-assembled costumes available, but this one is also fairly simple to DIY.

Plus, your dog can carry around their favorite stick as a wand.

Have your dog be a lion for the night.

This fairly simple costume only requires one piece to complete the outfit, a lion's mane. This look typically works best on blonde or light-colored pups.

Have your pup dress up as a spooky skeleton.

If you have a dog with a dark coat, using non-toxic, pet-safe white paint is an easy way to get your dog ready for Halloween. Because there are no clothing items or accessories, this is a good option for dogs who are likely to eat or shred a costume.

But, there are also fabric versions of this costume available. 

• Paul Allen, the billionaire cofounder of Microsoft, has passed away at age 65 after a battle with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 
• Allen, a philanthropist, also owned the Seattle Seahawks and the Portland Trail Blazers.
• A childhood friend of Bill Gates, it was actually Allen who came up with the name "Micro-Soft."
• Allen officially left his day-to-day role at Microsoft in 1983, but stayed on the board until 2000.

Paul Allen, who cofounded Microsoft with Bill Gates, died Monday afternoon after a battle with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, his family confirmed to Business Insider. He was 65.

Allen, a tech billionaire, was a philanthropist and the owner of the Seattle Seahawks and the Portland Trail Blazers. He operated Vulcan Ventures, a venture-capital fund.

Allen was first diagnosed with the cancer in 2009, and disclosed earlier this month that it had returned after a period of remission. At the time, Allen said that he planned on staying involved with his various business ventures. It was the third time that Allen has been diagnosed with some form of lymphoma. He survived Hodgkin's lymphoma after being diagnosed in the 1980s.

Allen, a Seattle native, and Gates were childhood friends. In 1972, while in high school, the pair launched Traf-o-Data, a software company that tracked and analyzed traffic patterns. When Gates went to Harvard, Allen stayed local and went to Washington State University, though he ended up dropping out.

It was Allen who suggested that the two work together to make a BASIC language interpreter for the then cutting-edge Altair 8800 microcomputer, which became Microsoft's first product. The name "Micro-Soft" for their joint venture was Allen's idea.

Further, Allen was responsible for the key deal that made Microsoft a major player in the PC revolution: When Gates promised IBM in 1980 that Microsoft would supply an operating system for its flagship PC, it was Allen who went and purchased the rights to the "Quick and Dirty Operating System," or QDOS, from developer Tim Paterson. Microsoft rebranded QDOS as MS-DOS, or the Microsoft Disk Operating System, and supplied it to IBM per the deal.

In 1983, Allen stepped aside from day-to-day operations at Microsoft, not long after beginning treatment for his first diagnosis with Hodgkin's lymphoma. He remained on the company's board of directors until 2000.

Allen would later write that his departure was marked by a period of friction with Gates, where they disagreed over the direction of the company. Allen said that Gates tried to buy out his shares in the company, but that he ultimately decided to hang on to his stake — which made Allen his fortune when Microsoft went public in 1986.

Allen was also known as a musician. As a guitarist, he fronted a band called The Underthinkers, and wrote or cowrote every song on their 2013 album. He also founded Seattle's Experience Music Project, or EMP, which was originally a museum devoted to his hero Jimi Hendrix. Allen also started the Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame, in the same building as the EMP. The two have since been combined into the Museum of Pop Culture.

Allen's net worth was pegged at $20 billion.

Lymphomas are cancers that attack the lymphatic system. Non-Hodgkin's is more common than Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Jody Allen, Paul's sister, issued the following statement:

My brother was a remarkable individual on every level. While most knew Paul Allen as a technologist and philanthropist, for us he was a much-loved brother and uncle, and an exceptional friend. Paul's family and friends were blessed to experience his wit, warmth, his generosity and deep concern. For all the demands on his schedule, there was always time for family and friends. At this time of loss and grief for us – and so many others – we are profoundly grateful for the care and concern he demonstrated every day.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella posted a tribute on his LinkedIn:

Paul Allen’s contributions to our company, our industry and to our community are indispensable. As co-founder of Microsoft, in his own quiet and persistent way, he created magical products, experiences and institutions, and in doing so, he changed the world. I have learned so much from him – his inquisitiveness, curiosity and push for high standards is something that will continue to inspire me and all of us at Microsoft. Our hearts are with Paul’s family and loved ones. Rest in peace.

Bill Hilf, the CEO of Allen's holding company Vulcan Inc., said:

All of us who had the honor of working with Paul feel inexpressible loss today. He possessed a remarkable intellect and a passion to solve some of the world’s most difficult problems, with the conviction that creative thinking and new approaches could make profound and lasting impact.

Millions of people were touched by his generosity, his persistence in pursuit of a better world, and his drive to accomplish as much as he could with the time and resources at his disposal.

Paul’s life was diverse and lived with gusto. It reflected his myriad interests in technology, music and the arts, biosciences and artificial intelligence, conservation and in the power of shared experience – in a stadium or a neighborhood – to transform individual lives and whole communities.

Paul loved Seattle and the Pacific Northwest. The impact of Paul’s efforts can be seen here at every turn. But the true impact of his vision and generosity is evident around the globe.

Paul thoughtfully addressed how the many institutions he founded and supported would continue after he was no longer able to lead them. This isn’t the time to deal in those specifics as we focus on Paul’s family. We will continue to work on furthering Paul’s mission and the projects he entrusted to us. There are no changes imminent for Vulcan, the teams, the research institutes or museums.

Today we mourn our boss, mentor and friend whose 65 years were too short – and acknowledge the honor it has been to work alongside someone whose life transformed the world."

SEE ALSO: The Fabulous Life Of Microsoft's Other Billionaire Cofounder Paul Allen

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An aerospace company reintroduced its precision helicopter with two crossing motors

• According to a new report from analysts at Morgan Stanley, Disney's upcoming streaming service will gain over 20 million subscribers by 2024.
• The analysts projected the service to be profitable in 2026, and noted the service will be "more modest" than Netflix in its scope of content and spending.

With a library full of Marvel, Star Wars, and other beloved franchises, Disney is expected to be a major force in the streaming wars when it launches its own service late next year.

A new report from analysts at Morgan Stanley, led by Benjamin Swinburne, estimated the service will gain around 23 million subscribers by 2024, and between 40-45 million by 2028. Based on an expected monthly subscription price of $9 at launch, which could increase to $13 by 2028, the analysts predicted the service will be profitable in 2026.

The analysts wrote that they saw the Disney service becoming a $6-billion-plus business, "with stand-alone EBIT profitability achieved in 2026E."

Disney would have been a formidable player in the streaming game even without the Fox merger, but the analysis was made with the assumption that the Disney-Fox deal will be completed as planned. Last week, 21st Century Fox president Peter Rice told Variety that the deal is expected to close by January 1, at which point Disney will own Fox's film studio and other assets. That means that Disney will own Fox's Marvel superhero properties the X-Men and Fantastic Four, as well as other franchises like "Avatar" and "Alien."

The Morgan Stanley report noted that Disney's service will be "more modest" in its scope of content and spending than its primary competition, Netflix. Netflix made it a goal this year to have 1,000 original shows and movies by year's end, and spent an estimated $8 billion to do so. The analysis estimated Netflix to have 227 million subscribers by 2022 compared to the 117 million it had last year.  

But that doesn't mean that Disney isn't dropping big bucks on the service. Morgan Stanley expects Disney to spend nearly $2 billion on content for the streaming service prior to its launch in 2019, and "could have 8-10 original TV series (including at least 2-3 high-profile series with larger budgets), 3-4 original films, as well as other original TV movies and short-form content ready to be released."

"The service is also expected to include library content from Disney Channel and a steady pipeline of recent
theatrical releases in the US following the expiration of its Netflix pay-1 deal in calendar 2018," the analysts added.

Netflix won't be Disney's only competition, though. AT&T, which now owns Time Warner, announced last week that it will launch its own streaming service next year that will include HBO. Amazon is developing a pricey "Lord of the Rings" TV series, and Hulu should never be counted out with a wide-range of content that includes the Emmy-winning "The Handmaid's Tale."

Read more of Business Insider's coverage on Disney's upcoming streaming service:

• The live-action 'Star Wars' TV show is officially called 'The Mandalorian'
• Disney is reportedly developing Marvel TV shows for its upcoming streaming service
• Disney's Scarlet Witch TV show could finally introduce the X-Men to the MCU
• A potential TV show gives new life to a popular theory that Loki didn't die in 'Avengers: Infinity War'
• Disney's upcoming streaming service likely won't have its full catalog at launch, notably lacking classic 'Star Wars' movies

SEE ALSO: Steve Carell and Timothée Chalamet scored Amazon its best opening weekend ever with 'Beautiful Boy'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A top movie actor reveals how he learns different accents

If you're searching for a new dog, making the decision to adopt one from a shelter is a great choice. But before you can sign off and take your new best friend home, how can you tell if this particular shelter dog is the right fit for you?

If adopting a dog is in your near future, here are 10 ways to tell you've chosen the right companion.

If their body language is relaxed and welcoming, that's a good sign.

One of the easiest signs to tell whether or not a dog feels safe around you is to check their body language. A dog that feels comfortable around you will have a more relaxed body language, allowing you to pet them and play with them.

According to the American Kennel Club, however, a dog that is cowering, lacking movement, or moving erratically could mean they are stressed, scared, or don't want to be touched. 

If they're playful and energetic around you, your dog is probably a good fit.

Not all dogs will be full of energy. Since a lot of shelter dogs may be more advanced in age, it's likely that they won't have that over-the-top energy that a puppy has.

Still, though, if your dog is the right fit for you, he'll most likely enjoy playing, at least occasionally, with you. You'll be able to tell they're wanting to play with you if they do what Animal Kingdom calls the "play bow."

You'll know you're witnessing a "play bow" if your dog suddenly put his butt in the air with his front legs forward and his tail wagging. 

If they make eye contact, they're most likely bonding with you.

It turns out, if a dog makes eye contact with you, they're most likely bonding with you.

CBS News reported that a new study in Science led by Takefumi Kikusui, an animal behaviorist at Azabu University in Japan, found that your pups eye contact is actually incredibly meaningful. 

"Our data suggest that owner-dog bonding is comparable to human parent-infant bonding, that is, oxytocin-mediated eye-gaze bonding," Kikusui said. "And this is surprising to us because there is not a reproductive relationship between human and dogs, but both of them have acquired similar skills. "

• A Cherokee Nation official rebuked Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts after a DNA test report published Monday asserted there is evidence to "strongly support" Warren's claim to have Native American ancestors.
• Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. called the test cited by Warren's report "useless" in determining tribal citizenship and alleged she was "undermining tribal interests" with her "continued claims of tribal heritage."
• Kim TallBear, an associate professor for Native American studies at the University of Alberta, also criticized Warren for claiming Native American heritage and accused her of failing to back up those claims by meeting with other Cherokee Nation members.

A Cherokee Nation official rebuked Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts after a DNA test report published Monday asserted there is evidence to "strong support" Warren's claim to have Native American ancestors.

Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. called the test cited by Warren's report "useless" in determining tribal citizenship and alleged she was "undermining tribal interests" with her "continued claims of tribal heritage."

"A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Hoskin said in a statement.

"Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong." Hoskin added. "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven."

Kim TallBear, an associate professor for Native American studies at the University of Alberta, also criticized Warren for claiming Native American heritage and accused her of failing to back up her claim by meeting with other Cherokee Nation members.

"For Elizabeth Warren to center a Native American ancestry test as the next move in her fight with Republicans is to make yet another strike — even if unintended— against tribal sovereignty," TallBear said in a statement.

"She continues to defend her ancestry claims as important despite her historical record of refusing to meet with Cherokee Nation community members who challenge her claims," she added.

The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians, one of three federally recognized Cherokee tribes, said in a statement to Business Insider that although it appreciated "Warren's enthusiasm for Native America, her DNA test alone cannot satisfy these membership requirements for our tribe."

Warren, a potential candidate for the 2020 US presidential election, long contended that she had Native American ancestry. President Donald Trump has since harangued Warren on the issue since before he took office.

Trump accused Warren of using her self-described heritage to advance her political career and taunted her by suggesting she should take an ancestry test — even offering to donate $1 million to charity if she agreed to take a DNA test that "shows you're an Indian."

After news of the report got out on Monday, Trump backtracked and said he would pay only if he could administer the test himself.

Fact-checkers were previously unable to determine whether Warren was of Native American heritage, but, according to their findings, the lack of proof did not "preclude Warren from having traces of Native American heritage,"The Washington Post reported in 2012.

SEE ALSO: The dark history of Pocahontas, whose name Trump has evoked to slam Elizabeth Warren

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

• Diane Greene, Google cloud chief, will not attend an investment event in Saudi Arabia. 
• Greene is the latest US business leader to pull out of the event following the disappearance of a dissident Saudi journalist.
• Greene's decision not to attend the conference comes following a year whe Google has tried to build closer ties to the Saudi government. 

Google is the latest in a still growing number of US businesses to distance themselves from Saudi Arabia following accusations that the government there is behind the disappearance of a dissident journalist.

Google Cloud CEO Diane Greene was scheduled to speak at an investment event called the Future Investment Initiative, a conference sponsored by Saudi government, but has now dropped out.

“We can confirm Diane Greene will not be attending the FII Summit,” said a Google spokesperson in a written statement.

A cloud of suspicion has hung over the Saudi government ever since Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist, a Saudi citizen, and a well-known critic of the government there, went missing on Oct. 2. The government of Turkey alleges it has proof that Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi embassy in Turkey. Saudi officials have denied it had anything to do with Khashoggi’s disappearance.

In response to the accusations, several high-profile tech leaders announced last week they had pulled out of the conference dubbed the "Davos in the Desert." Included among them are Dara Khosrowshahi, Uber's CEO, Steve Case, an AOL cofounder and venture capitalist, Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, and Andy Rubin, cofounder of Android and former Google executive.  

The controversy comes at an awkward time for Google. The past year, the company has tried to strengthen ties with the Saudis. In April, Google's leaders met with  Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. According to reports, they discussed cooperating on cloud computing services and the possibility of building a digital hub in Saudi Arabia.    

Later that month, after the company reported earnings, Google CEO Sundar Pichai announced that Google would roll out cloud services in Saudi Arabia.

"Our global infrastructure continues to expand to support demand," Pichai told analysts on the call. "We commissioned three new sub sea cables and announced new regions in Canada, Japan, Netherlands and Saudi Arabia, bringing our total of recently launched and upcoming regions to 20."

Pulling out of the conference could conceivably harm Google's relationship with the crown prince, though had Greene attended, critics would have likely claimed that Google was once again at odds with the company’s values.

The situation shows just how hard it can be for Greene to build Google’s cloud business, and make up ground on two much larger rivals, Amazon AWS and Microsoft's Azure, while not running afoul of the company’s moral codes.

Earlier this year, after thousands of the company's employees rose up in protest, Google stopped working on a military program called Project Maven, an effort that used artificial intelligence to analyze drone surveillance footage.

The company also published a list of principles that would direct its use of AI in the future. Those principles appear to demand some sacrifice from the company. Last week, Google said it would not bid on a $10 billion Pentagon contract due to potential conflicts with the AI principles.

Amazon is currently the favorite to win the contract. And Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos took a veiled shot at Google at a conference in San Francisco on Monday: "If big tech companies are going to turn their back on the US Department of Defense, this country is going to be in trouble," he said.

SEE ALSO: 'Things have changed at Google': An engineer who quit to protest Project Maven explains why the company's changing values forced him out

SEE ALSO: Individuals and businesses are distancing themselves from Saudi Arabia following the disappearance of journalist Jamal Khashoggi

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An aerospace company reintroduced its precision helicopter with two crossing motors

• Senator Elizabeth Warren released DNA test results Monday showing that she probably has some Native American heritage.
• A geneticist at Stanford University who analyzed Warren's DNA said he has "very high confidence" in the test results.
  
• DNA tests can't tell you anything about your ancestry with 100% certainty. Here's what they really do. 

For years, Senator Elizabeth Warren has touted the fact that she's part Cherokee, expressing pride in her Native heritage.

President Donald Trump has routinely mocked that assertion, using the nickname "Pocahontas" for Warren. In a July rally, Trump even said that if she could prove, based on DNA testing, that she has Native American ancestors, then he would donate $1 million to the charity of Warren's choice.

On Monday, Warren answered that call.

"A famous geneticist analyzed my DNA and concluded that it contains Native American ancestry," Warren wrote on Twitter.

On a webpage connected to her reelection campaign in Massachusetts, she also posted a video and a detailed ancestry report from the lab of Stanford genetics professor and DNA-sequencing expert Carlos Bustamante.

"In the Senator's genome, we did find five segments of Native American ancestry with very high confidence where we believe the error rate is less than 1 in 1,000." Bustamante said in the video posted on Warren's site. He said those results suggest that Warren "absolutely" has a Native American ancestor.

What Warren's test tells us 

Senator Warren has not responded to Business Insider's request for information about precisely how she conducted the test, but most genetic tests that US consumers use today rely on cheek swabs. Users collect a bit of saliva that way, then send the spit in for analysis.

Typically, more than half the cells in someone's spit can include viable, intact genomic data about that person. Blood samples tend to have more DNA data, but saliva can be a decent way to extract genomic data with considerably less pain. 

The DNA tests that are available to consumers, such as 23andMe or AncestryDNA, zero in on hundreds of thousands of locations on a person's genome. By doing so, they can pinpoint spots that give scientists clues about who a person's relatives could be. 

Bustamante's analysis seems to have been done in a similar way. Warren’s sample "contained information on 764,958 sites of genetic variation," according to the report. These are the special spots in Warren's genetic code that make her different from everyone else, since most human DNA (about 99.9%) is identical from person to person. That other 0.01% is responsible for our differences, from the color of our eyes to the pigment of our skin, and even our genetic predispositions for disease.

The scientists compared Warren's sample to others from the 1,000 Genomes Project Consortium, which sequenced the genomes of 2,504 people from 26 populations around the world. Warren's DNA was compared to 148 people's fully-sequenced genomes: 37 of those individuals were from Europe, 37 had Sub-Saharan African ancestry, 37 were from the Americas and had Native American ancestry, and 37 came from China.

When scientists compare genomes in this way, they're looking for meaningful patterns: signs that one person's DNA shares certain tell-tale markers with another. That's a sign that the individuals may be distantly related, but it's not proof that one person is necessarily related to another. 

Warren's sample had a lot of markers that are common to European ancestry, and a few that are common to what the researchers think could be Native American ancestry. The reason Bustamante thinks Warren probably has a Native American ancestor is that some DNA segments in her sample matched with segments from people native to Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Those similarities suggest Warren likely had a Native American relative about eight generations ago.

"The largest segment identified as having Native American ancestry is on chromosome 10," the researchers wrote. "This segment is clearly distinct from segments of European ancestry, and is strongly associated with Native American ancestry." 

Why genetic testing is not a perfect science

Consumer DNA testing is rapidly taking off. Today, more than 12 million people have tested their spit, according to MIT Technology Review. 

But the genetic-testing kits that many people are trying don't always give accurate results about their lineage. A 2018 study published in the journal Genetics in Medicine suggested that 40% of the differences in genes reported in direct-to-consumer DNA tests were due to testing errors (false positives). 

The tests are also raising concerns about privacy. A study released last week estimates that 60% of white Americans — who are the biggest consumers of DNA testing services — could now be identified up to a "third cousin or closer" using available DNA test data. The authors of the study said that information could implicate more criminals like the Golden State Killer in coming years, if more investigators compare DNA evidence from crime scenes with publicly available genetic information that's tied to people's names. That technique probably couldn't be applied to minority groups, though, because scientists don't have as much data from those groups. In fact, for some ethnic groups like Native Americans, scientists have hardly any data at all. 

In Warren's case, the test didn't conclusively say whether her DNA matches that of current Native American tribal populations in the US. The researchers said making that connection wouldn't be possible, since "Native American groups within the US have not chosen to participate in recent population genetics studies." 

At least 95% of Warren's DNA is likely of European origin, according to the test.

Should DNA decide who gets to be considered Native American?

In an article published in the Native Voice in 2004, racial politics professor Kim TallBear (a member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of South Dakota) and biological anthropologist Deborah Bolnick pointed out that "eligibility for Native American rights is ultimately a political and cultural issue that will never be satisfactorily answered by genetics."

So although Trump may have suggested that Warren should prove her background using a DNA test, native groups certainly didn't ask her to. In fact, the Cherokee Nation sent a statement to the Oklahoman voicing the group's disapproval.

"Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person's ancestors were indigenous to North or South America," Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. "It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens." 

Warren is not a tribal citizen, a fact she readily acknowledges on her website. For that, most US tribes require a "blood quantum" of one-quarter, which Warren most likely doesn't have (or purport to have). 

Plus, as TallBear has said, nobody should be boiled down to the chromosomes in a spit sample, anyway.

"I worry about the way Native American identity gets represented as this purely racial category by some of the companies marketing these tests," she told New Scientist in 2014. "The story is so much more complicated than that."

For her part, Warren tweeted at Trump on Monday, asking him to send a $1 million check to the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, a nonprofit that works to curb domestic violence and improve the safety and well-being of native women. A 2007 report from Amnesty International found that Native women were 2.5 times more likely to be the victims of rape or sexual violence than other women in the US, and that nearly 86% of the rapes were committed by non-Native men. 

SEE ALSO: An economist has a wild proposal to give all kids in the US up to $60,000 at birth

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Our genetic makeup makes online dating perfect for men but terrible for women

• Facebook will show its UK users who is paying to target them with online political ads from Tuesday.
• The company will both label ads as they appear in its News Feed, and archive all political ads in a searchable library which will retain ads for seven years. The changes also apply to Instagram.
• The new tools are a direct response to global criticism of Facebook's role in the US presidential election, the UK Brexit referendum, and other elections.
• The increased transparency may give political parties and groups pause before they launch divisive ads only intended to be seen by small audiences.

Facebook will show British voters which political parties, pressure groups, and other organisations might be paying to influence their vote and opinions through online advertising.

The decision means that, starting on Tuesday, Facebook will show how Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and other political parties and groups target voters with advertising.

The social network will on Tuesday release a library of political ads showing who has paid for individual political ads on its main site and on Instagram, approximately how much was spent, and which demographic the ad was aimed at. All ads will appear in the library, no matter how small the target audience is.

It will also label political ads in the News Feed with a "Paid for by" label showing which organisation is behind a paid post.

Any ad that references political figures, parties, elections, and legislation or referenda that are in the news will automatically be classed as a political ad. That means any ads relating to Brexit, next year's local elections, or anything about prime minister Theresa May or Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn would likely be classified as political advertising.

Facebook will use a mix of human moderators and machine learning to categorise ads. It will also rely on users to flag subtler political ads.

While Facebook will indicate spend on particular ads, it won't break down in detail how ads are targeted. For example, Facebook won't show whether a party targeted ads by "interest", which can sometimes indicate more sensitive information like race.

Articles from British media relating to politics will also appear in the ads library, though under a separate label.

To try and stamp out fake actors posting divisive ads, Facebook will ask anyone who wants to post a political ad on behalf of a party, candidate, or organisation to go through a verification process.

Individuals posting a political ad will need some form of official ID, such as their driving licence, and a valid UK address before they are allowed to post a paid ad. Facebook will post a code to that address, which the individual will need to enter into the site before they can continue posting ads.

There is a grace period until November 7, before which political parties and individuals can self-identify as political advertisers. After that, Facebook will automatically begin categorising ads into its library. It will keep political ads in its searchable archive for 7 years, and that library will be available to anyone with or without a Facebook account.

The new tool was created directly in response to global criticism at Facebook's role in the US presidential election, the UK's Brexit referendum, and other elections around the world. A UK parliamentary committee, led by Conservative MP Damian Collins, wrung a promise from Facebook's chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer that the company would begin labelling political ads before local elections in 2019.

The company has made similar tools available in the US and Brazil.

What does Facebook showing political ad information mean for the general public?

Facebook's shift towards transparency around online advertising will likely be seen as a welcome first step. For the most part, it is currently hard for voters to see how political parties and other groups target particular individuals or groups through online advertising. A library of ads will allow the media and public to scrutinise political messages and the intent behind them.

Increased transparency may also give political parties pause before they launch highly targeted, divisive ads that are targeted at a small online audience but might normally go unnoticed by the political press. Now every ad will be visible for seven years via Facebook's political ad library, and anything that looks divisive may come back to haunt a candidate or party in later years.

The new transparency tools are not explicitly designed to prevent misinformation campaigns by foreign trolls. Facebook instead has a dedicated team to sniff out what it describes as "inauthentic behaviour." Rather, they allow voters (and rival parties and candidates) to see what messages parties are peddling.

Facebook will allow researchers, journalists, and third-parties access to its ads library data through a set of APIs, the company said.

A spokesman for the UK's election watchdog, the Electoral Commission, told Business Insider: "We welcome any changes that will help voters see who is targeting them with political messages online. This Facebook initiative is an important first step in providing voters with improved transparency. We will be monitoring how these changes are implemented and the impact they have, and we look forward to proposals from other digital advertising platforms in the UK."

A spokesman for the Labour party said: "Labour welcomes efforts to ensure that in the future, campaigning on social media is just as transparent as more traditional campaigning methods."

The Conservatives did not respond to a request for comment.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Samsung Galaxy Note 9 is a $1,000 phone that's actually worth it

• Menswear startup Thread has raised $22 million (£16.7 million) to help men navigate clothes shopping.
• Thread uses a mix of machine learning and real-life stylists to learn about its customers' fashion tastes, and recommend stylish clothing accordingly.
• The company has well-known brands such as Hugo Boss and Barbour on board, and more than 1 million customers.
• The company will use the money to cement itself as a household name and build up its technical capabilities.

Thread, the startup that helps men who hate shopping buy clothes, has raised $22 million (£16.7 million) in venture capital backing to expand its technical capabilities and to cement itself as a household name.

Thread has more than a million customers signed up to its service, which takes a few registration details about a user's fashion taste and budget, then uses that information to recommend new outfits.

As customers buy more clothing through the app, Thread's algorithm learns more about what they like and makes new recommendations accordingly. It also learns from clothes customers click on but don't buy, what they scroll past, and what the weather's like.

The idea is that men who hate rifling through racks of clothes in physical stores can still look smart and on-trend by buying through Thread. Well-known brands such as Barbour and Hugo Boss are available through the service.

The startup employs 10 full-time stylists who curate outfits and write personalised messages to customers. But much of the recommendation load is handled by Thread's homegrown machine learning algorithm, much like Spotify's algorithm recommends music.

A quarter of Thread's users buy all their clothes through the service

Chief executive and serial entrepreneur Kieran O'Niell said a quarter of Thread's users buy all their clothing through the service. It's currently only available to male shoppers in the UK, but O'Niell said the plan was to introduce womenswear to the app some time in the future.

It has, he said, taken almost four years to get the machine learning aspect right. "If you use off-the-shelf approaches, you get boring results," he said. "Like if you buy a black T-shirt, you would be recommended a grey T-shirt. So we had to create something that would understand what you like... and factor in individual preferences, plus what the weather is like, and stuff you already own."

One thing the service could do better, he said, was adapt to customers' changing tastes. "What we're not good at is someone who did want [certain] stuff, has changed, and now wants more adventurous stuff. There's more we can do on that side."

O'Neill added that most of Thread's customers were aged between 25 and 45. "I was surprised our customer base is as old as it is," he said. "I would have thought a younger guy would be more fashion-conscious, it turns out lots of guys between 25 and 45 want to dress well [and] don't like shopping."

Thread's latest round was led by new investors Balderton, Forward Partners, Beringea and H&M's investment arm. The round included a small amount of debt financing from Triplepoint Capital. High-profile previous investors include DeepMind cofounders Demis Hassabis and Mustafa Suleyman, and prestigious Silicon Valley bootcamp Y Combinator.

O'Neill also plans to follow a startup trend set by the likes of Monzo and BrewDog: letting customers buy in. The company will open up to crowd investors via Crowdcube in November. The plan is to raise £500,000 to £1 million, though O'Neill said Thread may cap the round.

"From the beginning we we always wanted to hold back part of it so customers can invest," he said. "The main reason we have succeeded is because of loyal customers, and it's just a way of offering them the chance to invest in the business. We're not doing it to raise lots of extra cash."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple's entire iPhone XS event in 8 minutes