Week in Review: Google buys Wiz
Welcome back to Week in Review! We've got tons of stories to share from this week, like the greatest hits from Nvidia GTC; the NASA astronauts finally came home; Rippling's lawsuit; and Google bought Wiz. Let's get to it!
Google finally does it: Google made its biggest acquisition in its history this week when it confirmed that it was buying Wiz for $32 billion. Google says it will position Wiz as a 'multicloud' offering, meaning Wiz will not be a Google-only shop. Last year, Google offered Wiz $23 billion for its business. Guess it pays to say no sometimes.
Speaking of acquisitions: xAI, Elon Musk's AI company, bought Hotshot, a startup working on AI-powered video-generation tools. The acquisition could signal that xAI plans to build its own video-generation models to compete with the likes of OpenAI's Sora, Google's Veo 2, and others.
Nvidia GTC: Nvidia's biggest conference of the year ended on Thursday, and we were on the ground bringing you the latest from the chipmaker. The company announced two personal AI supercomputers; Groot N1, a foundational model for humanoid robots; new GPUs, called Blackwell Ultra, Vera Rubin, and Feynman; and much more.
This is TechCrunch's Week in Review, where we recap the week's biggest news. Want this delivered as a newsletter to your inbox every Saturday? Sign up here.
The gloves are off: HR company Rippling sued Deel, another player in the space, alleging racketeering, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. Deel denies the allegations.
Welcome back to Earth: The two NASA astronauts who were stranded for more than nine months on the International Space Station have finally returned to Earth. Sunita 'Suni' Williams and Barry 'Butch' Wilmore splashed down in the Gulf of Mexico in a SpaceX Dragon capsule on Tuesday after a 17-hour return journey from the ISS.
Pixel newness: Google this week released a new Pixel, called the 9a. The $499 smartphone features an upgraded 6.3-inch Actua display, which Google says is 35% brighter than the Pixel 8a. But the real update here is to the design: It's ditching its camera bar on the backside.
Hacked: The Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA), the largest organization for educators in Pennsylvania, says hackers stole the sensitive personal information of more than half a million of its members. PSEA said member account numbers, PINs, passwords, and security codes were also accessed during the breach, according to a letter sent to affected individuals.
Neat! A 12th grader built a website called Minecraft Bench (MC-Bench) that pits two AIs against each other to see which one builds better creations in Minecraft. MC-Bench is technically a programming benchmark, since the models are asked to write code to create the prompted build.
Actually super helpful: Google is switching up how you find email in your inbox. Rather than displaying everything chronologically, it will now use AI to consider factors like recency, most-clicked emails, and frequent contacts when surfacing emails based on your search query. A toggle will allow people to switch between 'Most relevant' or 'Most recent' emails on a search results page.
Humanoids in the home: The hype around humanoid robots for the home seems to have reached new heights. Norwegian robotics company 1X is capitalizing on this, announcing that it will test its humanoid robot, Neo Gamma, in 'a few hundred to a few thousand' homes by the end of the year.
Nvidia on top: Nvidia is sitting on top of the AI world, but it faces U.S. tariffs, DeepSeek, and shifting priorities from top AI customers. At this year's GTC, the company sought to assure attendees — and the rest of the world watching — that demand for its chips won't slow down anytime soon.
Wayve rides the wave: Wayve, which launched in 2017 and has raised more than $1.3 billion over the past couple years, plans to license its self-driving software to automotive and fleet partners, such as Uber. Wayve co-founder and CEO Alex Kendall sees promise in bringing his autonomous vehicle startup's tech to market.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans and Economists at Odds Over Whether Megabill Will Spur Growth Boom
WASHINGTON—Republicans see a golden age of prosperity ahead, driven by the tax-and-spending megabill they are trying to push through Congress by July 4. Nonpartisan experts project far more modest effects, forecasting a slight near-term economic expansion and larger federal budget deficits. The growth debate is at the core of this summer's fiscal fight. Republicans are trying to focus public attention on growth—from tax cuts, deregulation and fossil-fuel production—and play down the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill would increase budget deficits by $2.4 trillion through 2034. The White House highlights growth to bolster congressional support, countering claims from Elon Musk and others that the package irresponsibly darkens America's fiscal picture. 'Sextortion' Scams Involving Apple Messages Ended in Tragedy for These Boys The U.S. Economy Is Headed Toward an Uncomfortable Summer I Got Burned by the 401(k) 'Hierarchy Trap' Test Yourself Against These Teen Personal-Finance Whizzes, Round 2 Republicans and outside economists agree on the basic direction: tax cuts increase consumer spending and business investment, accelerating short-term growth. But they differ vastly on how large and meaningful that jump would be. The bill, according to public- and private-sector economists, would fall far short of Republicans' hoped-for boom. 'We would expect some dynamic revenue, some revenue feedback in that larger economy,' said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation, which favors lower tax rates and a simpler system. 'But it wouldn't come close to paying for itself.' President Trump said in a social-media post last month that the U.S. annual growth rate would triple or even quintuple the 1.8% in CBO's January forecast, which doesn't incorporate the effects of any GOP policies. Since 2005, real U.S. gross domestic product growth hit or exceeded 3% twice: in 2018 after the 2017 tax cuts, and in 2021 during the recovery from the pandemic. House Republicans assume a 2.6% growth rate, yielding enough revenue to cover the megabill's deficits. 'The economy is going to explode in capital formation. Jobs will increase. Wages will increase,' Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R., Idaho) said after meeting with Trump last week. 'We're going to see the kind of growth and strength that this country wants.' Broadly, economists across the political spectrum discount elected officials' predictions. Tax Foundation: The conservative-leaning group estimates that the bill would boost long-term GDP by 0.8%, generating enough revenue to cover about one-third of its costs. That is compared with doing nothing and letting tax cuts expire Dec. 31. The gain is like adding an average of 0.1 percentage point to the annual growth rate; reaching 3% would require much larger changes, Watson said. Penn Wharton: Its budget model projects a 0.4% increase in GDP over the first decade. That is equivalent to raising the annual growth rate to 1.85% from 1.8%. 'Basically, I would call this flat,' said Kent Smetters, who runs the Penn model. 'We all know this is all going to get swamped by all the randomness.' Joint Committee on Taxation: The nonpartisan congressional scorekeeper projected that the bill's tax components would produce short-run growth through increased labor supply and capital stock. That would be counteracted by rising budget deficits, with a net effect of taking 1.83% annual growth to 1.86%. JCT estimates that the bill's tax provisions would cover less than 3% of their costs with revenue from economic growth. Yale Budget Lab: The think tank says the bill would bump the growth rate roughly to 2% from 1.8% through 2027, before the drag of federal debt weakens and reverses that effect. Those all contrast with the view of the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, which has a far rosier scenario. It projects a 4.2% to 5.2% increase in short-term GDP and a long-term gain of 2.9% to 3.5%. That gain would be three to four times the Tax Foundation estimate, which itself is larger than Penn Wharton, Yale or JCT. Economists caution that tax policy can't move the needle much in the U.S. economy, particularly given higher costs and uncertainty caused by tariffs. Still, putting money in taxpayers' pockets could increase demand for goods and services. Lower business taxes—especially faster write-offs for equipment and factories—encourage investment and have the biggest bang for the buck. Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran said growth after 2017 demonstrates that the Republican formula can work. The economy and incomes grew solidly in 2018 and 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic scrambled everything. 'When Americans elected President Trump, they did so knowing that he was a pro-growth president,' Miran said. 'The bill is going to create a vibrant, dynamic economy.' Miran added that federal taxes as a share of GDP was barely unchanged from fiscal 2017 to fiscal 2024. According to CBO, revenue was 17.3% of GDP in 2017 and 17.1% in 2024. 'There was no long-term hole in revenues,' Miran said. But before the tax cuts passed, CBO forecast revenue increasing to 18.3% in 2024, and the law changed that trajectory. One of the most thorough academic studies found that the 2017 law increased domestic business investment but didn't come close to paying for itself. The Tax Foundation's Watson said policymakers should expect a more muted response from extending the 2017 tax cuts than from creating them. The bill includes new and revived business incentives but schedules them to expire. 'It's pro-growth,' Watson said. 'The more you add in some of these gimmicks and temporary changes, the more watered-down it gets.' Senators including James Lankford (R., Okla.) and Steve Daines (R., Mont.) are seeking changes to encourage growth. They are particularly focused on making permanent some business-tax provisions such as immediate deductions for equipment purchases. 'If you have an expiration, you just don't get predictability,' Lankford said. Capital-investment incentives would be muted because tariff uncertainty complicates business planning, said Seth Carpenter, global chief economist at Morgan Stanley, which estimates that the bill would boost growth in 2026 before turning neutral and then negative. Some projects might make sense with high tariffs but not lower ones. Even with the bill's new deduction for factory expenses, without tariff certainty, Carpenter said, 'I don't think you're going to be in any sort of hurry to start breaking ground.' Kimberly Clausing, a former Biden administration economist now at the University of California, Los Angeles, said she worries about the drag from budget deficits. 'If they failed,' she said, 'I actually think that would be the best possible macroeconomic outcome.' Write to Richard Rubin at How Hydrogen, the Fuel of the Future, Got Bogged Down in the Bayou Chinese-Owned Company Halts Work on Factory to Make Batteries in U.S. It's the Republicans, Not Musk, Who Are Serious About Cutting Spending Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk Says DOGE Hasn't Been as Effective as He Wanted — Are More Cuts Coming?
Elon Musk said his high-profile effort to cut government waste with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has made 'some progress but not enough.' The tempered assessment comes amid reported tensions between Musk and President Donald Trump, whose administration launched the initiative. Although Musk announced his intention to step down from leadership of DOGE, the department will continue in its attempt to cut unnecessary spending by the federal government. Be Aware: Find Out: Musk said DOGE hasn't been as effective as he wanted. So, are more cuts coming? Musk envisioned DOGE as a transformative force to streamline federal operations. His ambitious plan aimed to eliminate wasteful spending, reduce bureaucracy and modernize government technology, with the ultimate goal of saving up to $2 trillion in taxpayer money. In his first 100 days leading DOGE, Musk claimed the team saved $1.6 billion a day, ABC News reported. However, he admitted the results fall short of his trillion-dollar goal. He blamed entrenched interests and bureaucracy, calling the reform process 'like turning a fleet of supertankers.' Specifically, Musk emphasized that achieving the revised goal of $1 trillion in federal spending cuts would depend on 'how much pain is the cabinet and Congress willing to take.' 'It can be done,' Musk told reporters. 'But it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.' Read Next: While Musk said DOGE saved $160 billion by cutting waste, an analysis cited by CBS News estimated the initiative could ultimately cost taxpayers $135 billion this fiscal year. The report, attributed to the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, outlined expenses tied to mismanaged staff cuts, lost productivity and administrative disruptions. In addition, some experts said the deeper issue was the assumption that government should operate like a business. They said that applying corporate strategies to public systems could create more disruption than efficiency. 'Running a government isn't like running a business,' said George Carrillo, co-founder and CEO of the Hispanic Construction Council. Carrillo previously served as the Director of Social Determinants of Health for the state of Oregon. 'It's not about moving fast to sell products or meet quarterly goals,' Carrillo said. 'Instead, it's a slower, more thoughtful process, where every decision impacts real people's lives.' Despite mixed results, the Trump administration is doubling down on DOGE's mission. The White House has formally requested that Congress rescind $9.4 billion in previously approved spending, targeting programs flagged by DOGE. If approved, the move would cement many of DOGE's proposed cuts and freezes, with Trump aides claiming the reductions focus on programs promoting liberal ideologies. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters, as reported by AP News. Johnson pledged the House would bring the package to the floor 'as quickly as possible.' Although Musk has formally stepped down from his leadership role at DOGE, he continues to advise the department behind the scenes. His influence still looms large over the initiative's direction, with Johnson citing his original vision when defending new rounds of cuts. Whether his continued involvement will help DOGE regain momentum or further politicize its mission remains to be seen. Still, some policy experts said that Musk's expectations may clash with the realities of public governance. 'From healthcare programs to safety nets, government work is layered with legal checks and balances designed to avoid harm, and Musk might be underestimating how much that complexity slows down big changes,' Carrillo said. 'Without fully understanding the governance structure, he likely views DOGE's progress as sluggish when, in reality, it reflects the careful deliberation necessary to ensure fairness and accuracy.' As Congress weighs the $9.4 billion rescissions package and potential expansions to DOGE, the coming months will test whether the initiative can sustain momentum without Musk at the helm. 'There could be longer delays or disruptions in receiving services like unemployment benefits, tax refunds or healthcare support, all because restructuring slows processes down before any improvements can take hold,' Carrillo said. 'Beyond that, large-scale changes also take a long time to bear fruit, so even with the best intentions, consumers and workers should expect a period where things might feel worse before they get better.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) 5 Types of Cars Retirees Should Stay Away From Buying This article originally appeared on Musk Says DOGE Hasn't Been as Effective as He Wanted — Are More Cuts Coming? Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Republicans are right to blanch at this Elon Musk gravy train
Elon Musk last week slammed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' for the trillions in new federal debt it is projected to cost — a subject well worth the nation's attention. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), however, pointed to a different possible motive for the tech billionaire's dissatisfaction with the bill: It 'has an effect on his business,' the speaker said. Johnson suggested that Musk began his campaign against the bill after they spoke about an obscure policy the act would roll back — one that has directed billions of dollars to Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company. Johnson's claims provide a revealing look at the side effects of well-meaning — but not all that well designed — government mandates (in this case, for the automobile industry to reduce emissions in specific ways), and how they can distort both politics and the economy. While the bill has many flaws, Republicans are right to object to the Tesla gravy train. Rather than keep it, as Musk would probably prefer, they should replace it with clean energy policies that promote competition and choice. Tesla heavily depends on selling automotive regulatory credits to traditional automakers. Manufacturers of gas-powered cars are failing to produce as many zero-emissions vehicles as national and state-level mandates from Washington, Sacramento and Brussels require. Consumers' appetite for EVs has grown, but not enough for traditional carmakers to transition off gas as quickly as the mandate-writers would have liked. So those companies must buy credits from EV-makers such as Tesla, which produces only zero-emissions vehicles. In 2024, Tesla made $2.76 billion on emissions deals, a 54 percent increase from the year before. During the first quarter of 2025, Tesla reported earning $595 million in regulatory credits, even as its total net income for the period was only $409 million. A February Post analysis found that Musk and his businesses received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits over the years, including $11.4 billion through automotive regulatory credits. 'About a third of Tesla's $35 billion in profits since 2014 has come from selling federal and state regulatory credits to other automakers,' The Post tabulated. 'These credits played a crucial role in the company's first profitable quarter in 2013 and its first full year of profitability in 2020. … Without the credits, Tesla would have lost more than $700 million in 2020, marking a seventh-consecutive year with no profits.' If you haven't heard of these regulatory credits, you're not alone. Even for those paying close attention, the EV policy fight that has attracted the most attention has been the One Big Beautiful Bill's proposed phaseout of $7,500 tax credits for electric car-buyers. Musk has expressed openness to eliminating the policy; analysts speculate that doing so could entrench his dominance in the U.S. EV market by making it harder for new entrants to break in. Such are the arcane politics and weird incentives that complex government regulations can promote, as companies compete for the profits that can flow from getting a clause inserted or deleted from the federal code. To be sure, the federal EV mandate's writers were well-intentioned. They wanted to accelerate the needed transition to electric vehicles, as transportation overtook electricity generation as the country's largest source of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. They used various policy levers available to them — from the Clean Air Act to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards — because Congress failed to enact more efficient clean energy policies. Republicans can change that, eliminating the mandates, tax credits and other subsidies that riddle federal law and replacing them with a robust and rising carbon tax. This policy would empower consumers and companies — each acting according to what makes the most sense for themselves, without government micromanagement — to decide how to green the economy. Maybe consumers would prefer to buy more plug-in gas-electric hybrid cars that eliminate 'range anxiety' before fully moving to EVs, which will be easier when electric car technology is more mature and charging infrastructure more ubiquitous. That's the beauty of a carbon tax: The emission costs from consumers' decisions would be reflected in the sticker prices they pay, maximizing choice and minimizing federal micromanagement — all while reducing the overall expense of a green energy transition. Admittedly, carbon taxes have been less politically successful than other policies that disguise their costs to consumers. (EV mandates boost car prices across the board; renewable electricity requirements increase power bills; etc.) But the politics cannot be as unflattering as the Musk-Trump meltdown the country had to endure last week.
