Aggregator

The "Alias" star admitted that acting can be a "very selfish" job.

The "Alias" star admitted that acting can be a "very selfish" job.

'The Pricking Is Coming': Dalio Warns AI Bubble Will Burst Like Dot-Com, But Tech Will Endure

Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio appeared on Bloomberg TV today and delivered a measured yet cautionary assessment of the artificial intelligence investment frenzy. He highlighted classic bubble dynamics - sky-high valuations, rampant speculation, and "paper wealth" vastly outpacing actual cash flows - while drawing direct parallels to the 2000 dot-com era.

"All great technology changes produce bubbles," Dalio said in the Wednesday Bloomberg Television interview. "Nobody can get it exactly right. You have to either spend a ton of money to capture your market share and don't worry about whether it's too much or not, or you don't spend enough money and you lose your market share."

Dalio explained the mechanism of how such a bubble eventually bursts: "The pricking is the converting of wealth into money." He noted that today's AI-driven market is "following that kind of path, even though it is a wonderful technology."

⚠️ Ray Dalio on timing the top of an AI bubble:

The pricking is converting wealth into money because I need money, so I have to sell some of the wealth in order to get the money. pic.twitter.com/lWtT8eOHou

— LuxAlgo (@LuxAlgo) June 3, 2026 AI Will Survive - Many Companies May Not

Dalio also hit on the law of the jungle; a lot of companies simply disappear during massive technological upheaval - as competition sorts out the winners and losers - which is separate of the technology's lasting impact. In short, the underlying innovations in AI will continue transforming economies and societies, much as the internet did after its own bubble deflated.

Meanwhile, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang just touted "insane" returns for investors willing to bet on the AI boom - with chipmakers notably having been the hottest stocks on Wall Street of late - driven by demand for high-bandwidth chips used in AI data centers and taking the market to record heights.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 12:45

Goldberg admitted that she "still" didn't understand after her co-hosts weighed in on the matter.

“I always thought that I was more fragile or weaker than what life proved me to be,” the singer said.

“I always thought that I was more fragile or weaker than what life proved me to be,” the singer said.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani is cleaning up a political mess after his office cancelled the annual pre-Puerto Rican Day Parade reception at Gracie Mansion, The Post has learned.

The San Francisco Giants are approaching an important crossroads.

Embattled Rep. Max Miller, who is facing an increasingly complicated reelection bid against a Bernie Sanders-backed foe, shared secret recordings he captured of his ex-wife to The Post as he tries to fend off her abuse accusations.

Snubbed By SpaceX, Jefferies Now Helping Traders Short World's Biggest IPO

Two weeks ago, when the SpaceX IPO prospectus landed, we observed, that "Goldman is lead left; and pretty much every other bank is on the cover."

Goldman is lead left; and pretty much every other bank is on the cover. They need that to sell it to retail https://t.co/9JogVIxo1i pic.twitter.com/nSnvx6tWqs

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 20, 2026

Yet one bank was missing: middle-market specialist (with a penchant for junk bonds and lack of due diligence on private credit deals), Jefferies.

Whether it was shunned due to prior bad blood between Elon and bank execs, or something else happened behind the scenes, we don't know but Jefferies bankers did not take it well. And now, SpaceX bears and some of Jefferies’ own bosses see the snub that as a unique opportunity to gang up against an IPO that some say could be in for a major reckoning once the stock prices.

According to Bloomberg, hedge funds that aren’t sold on Elon Musk’s rockets-to-tweets empire are hitting up Jefferies to see if it can arrange bets against SpaceX’s shares once they go public in one of the most highly anticipated initial public offerings ever.

Jefferies, which is the biggest US investment bank not named on the S-1 cover, is now uniquely situated to arrange those trades. While Wall Street firms routinely help clients take positions on all sides of a company’s shares, their lawyers can get nervous when one desk pitches a stock’s prospects to the masses while another helps clients bet against it. And that’s not to mention how Musk would react if one of the 23 banks he hired for his SpaceX’s debut helps set up big bearish trades.

Jefferies is not among them. And it is now seeking creative ways to make up for the loss in underwriter revenue. 

Banks have clamored for a piece of the IPO with a record valuation of at least $1.8 trillion. Bloomberg reported that Goldman CEO David Solomon reached out to Musk personally by sliding into his DMs on Twitter. His bank and Morgan Stanley ended up listed first on the deal (although MS was to the right of Goldman, a slap in the face of Adam Jonas who had covered TSLA for over a decade with nothing but praise), which is big enough to generate about $500 million of fees for underwriters.

And since they’re missing out on the SpaceX IPO - to the chagrin of some of the firm’s top rainmakers - Jefferies’ trading bosses are seeing a chance to mop up more business unencumbered, the Bloomberg sources said. In addition to shorting, the firm’s traders are preparing to help any investors that are allocated shares flip them in the days after SpaceX’s debut, BBG sources said.

While short sellers have struggled historically to successfully bet against Musk and his famously loyal shareholder base in the past, Bloomberg correctly notes that on Wall Street, building bridges to some of your competitors’ prized trading clients can be worth much more in the long run.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 12:25

It took crew members and a former MMA fighter to subdue Juan Gabriel Reyes, with the plane stopping in Miami, where he was arrested.

Platner pulled out of a planned fundraising event with VoteVets in DC after meeting with party lawmakers at their headquarters.

In addition to allegedly violating US sanction laws, federal authorities are investigating Ghomi for money laundering, tax evasion and other crimes.

The sale took place on what would have been the icon’s 100th birthday.

The sale took place on what would have been the icon’s 100th birthday.

North Carolina’s Mallard Creek High School boys’ track team will share the state championship after a polarizing disqualification was overturned. Nyan Brown had been disqualified from the 4×400-meter relay race last month due to a post-race celebration in which he raised his hand with five fingers extended as he crossed the finish line, with the...

CBS Fires '60 Minutes' Scott Pelley 'For Cause' After "Performative Display Of Hostility"

CBS News has fired "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley over a row with new executive producer Nick Bilton.

As Just The News reports, the shakeup marks the latest in a series of major changes at the network since Bari Weiss took over the network.

Her tenure has prompted internal dissent, much of which has leaked into the press.

Weiss founded the Free Press after leaving the New York Times and became head of CBS News after a buyout.

Pelley was among those critical of Weiss's decisions, including the appointment of Nick Bilton as executive producer for the show, Politico reported.

Pelley said CBS News head Bari Weiss was “murdering the show” and accused its new producer of having “slender qualifications” for the job, according to a report from HeadlineUSA.

Pelley made his accusations in an introductory meeting Monday between the newsmagazine’s staff and Nick Bilton, the new executive producer named by Weiss last week, according to a detailed report on the Status website, which said it had heard a recording of the meeting.

Weiss herself was not present, according to the report. Status specializes in media news and analysis.

Status reported that Pelley, the longtime “60 Minutes” correspondent, began grilling Bilton at the 10 a.m. meeting about the firings last week of Bilton’s predecessor, Tanya Simon, and correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

Status also reported that Pelley told Bilton, a former technology journalist and filmmaker with no traditional broadcast news experience, that his qualifications for the position were “slender.”

Pelley also charged, according to Status, that Weiss herself had “no qualifications for her job,” and said the changes she had made to “CBS Evening News,” which Pelley once anchored, “have been catastrophic.”

It added that Bilton insisted that “Bari loves this institution” and “she loves ’60 Minutes'” — to which Pelley countered, “She’s murdering ‘60 minutes.’ She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it and she’s doing exactly that.”

The New York Times, which also reported that it had listened to a recording of Monday’s meeting, noted that Pelley’s “newscaster’s baritone” was shaking during the exchange.

The newspaper also quoted an unnamed executive at the meeting as saying Weiss had been prepared to come, but “we asked her not to.”

Reports about the contentious meeting came four days after Weiss, who has become a polarizing figure in the media world since taking the reins at CBS last October, told staff in a memo that it was time for a “new approach” at the top-rated newsmagazine.

In the memo, Weiss and CBS News president Tom Cibrowski said their goal was “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”

“That requires a new approach,” they wrote, defining that approach as “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”

In a termination letter that Politico obtained, Bilton fired Pelley after this outburst, accusing Pelley of "hijacking" his meeting with staff to question his qualifications and said he treated him with "remarkable incvility and contempt."

Full letter from Bilton below (emphasis ours)

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead.

Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt.

I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort.

Yesterday’s performative display of hostility—enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation—demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear.

And I have heard you.

I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,
Nick Bilton
Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Mr. Pelley, in a telephone interview on Tuesday evening shortly after he was fired, told The New York Times that he had devoted decades of his life to “60 Minutes,” which he said he still cared about deeply.

“I have been in combat in Afghanistan,” Mr. Pelley said. “I have been in combat in Iraq. I have been in the war zone in Ukraine multiple times, risking my life and the happiness of my family because of my devotion to the broadcast.”

Pelley issued a statement after his firing (emphasis ours)...

There has never been anything in America like 60 Minutes.

The Sunday tradition is the most successful program of any kind in history. For more than a decade, its innovative growth on every major online platform has extended its reach to countless millions around the world. This spring, at the end of our 58th season, 60 Minutes grew rapidly with an unheard-of 9% jump in viewers on CBS.

"60" has been the number-one program in America for decades because our beloved audience finds integrity, quality, and humanity in our stories. When stewardship of the program passed to my colleagues and me, our responsibility was to expand energetically into a new age of media technology while preserving the values our audience expects. Now, the new owner of our network is casting this legend aside, apparently to curry a moment of favor with the Trump administration.

The waste is heartbreaking.

Last month, 60 Minutes lost its DNA when our entire senior leadership and two of our best on-air correspondents were cruelly fired without cause. Good people were silenced because they stood up for our audience. They stood for fairness against the forces of political bias; they stood for professionalism against chaos.

For my part, new management has instructed me to inject falsehoods and bias into a politically sensitive story. I’ve been told to include assertions that are unverified. To date, in every case, I have managed to ignore these instructions or refuse them. Recently, politicians have been invited to choose correspondents for interviews on the broadcast. Giving politicians control over 60 Minutes interviews is not how this is done. Finally, incompetence and unprofessionalism in the new management have wreaked havoc. In a case involving one of my stories, the entire program came within 19 minutes of not getting on the air at all.

At 60 Minutes, we have fought harder than anyone knows to save the program that became an American icon. We owed that to our millions of viewers. I am deeply moved by the thousands of wishes we have received to "keep up the good fight." Most of the men and women of CBS News are still in that fight. But now the collapse of values at the top has become untenable. The leadership of 60 Minutes is no longer recognizable.

The principles I hold dear are gone, and so I must leave as well.

I depart after 37 years at CBS with one emotion—a heart brimming with gratitude for the men and women of CBS News who encouraged and enriched my work, very often at the risk of their own lives. I pray for a day when those people and their ideals are honored again—a day when sanity, competence, and courage return.

Scott Pelley

We give the final word on this farce to a handful of social media commentators who summed up our feelings rather well:

The arrogance of this pathetic pasty carcass is comical.

— D.C.M (@dc_roark) June 3, 2026

Good riddance. We don’t want to hear these left wing paid liars anymore.

— The North Remembers (@TheNorth212) June 3, 2026

Reading from scripts prepared by Media Matters and the Clintons ruined 60 Minutes.

— Gordon 💥🇺🇸💥✡️ (@StopTheCoup2020) June 3, 2026

Scott Pelley is one more corrupt degenerate Democrat who has contributed to bringing our country to this point of moral and social rot. And he thinks he is the good guy.

Good riddance.

— Augustina 🇻🇦 (@AugustinaJJD) June 3, 2026

What a petty, pontificating jackass.

— Jack Bauer after dark 🇺🇸🇮🇱 (@JackBauerAD) June 3, 2026

Ouch!

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 12:10

Around the world, one in six people are affected by infertility.

Rabo On Regime-Change At The Fed: What Warsh Can (And Should) Do First

The honeymoon period for Warsh is over.

The FOMC could have given him the professional courtesy of allowing him to settle in, but in recent weeks several Committee participants have staked out their position.

They want to drop the FOMC’s easing bias and instead take a more neutral stance.

This means it will be more difficult for Warsh to convince the Committee of cutting rates anytime soon.

Against that internal pressure, WSJ's Fed whisperer, Nick Timaraos reports that Warsh has tapped two outside associates to advise him while he settles into the job, one of whom previously helped write a conservative blueprint that recommended a radical restructuring of the central bank.

The manifesto drew attention for floating ideas well outside the mainstream of monetary policy, including a menu of overhauls whose top-ranked option was “free banking” - effectively abolishing the Fed in favor of privately issued, commodity-backed currency.

The report included a disclaimer that said the ideas shouldn’t be attributed to any individual and instead synthesized the views of a panel of contributors.

Winfree later distanced himself from the chapter’s more provocative proposals.

“I do think the Fed should be reformed,” he told Roll Call in 2024. “But I would not subscribe to the idea of nuking the Fed.”

As Rabobank details below, the shifting dynamics in the FOMC cannot be seen separately from the developments in the Strait of Hormuz.

As the conflict drags on, energy prices will remain elevated and high inflation sustained for longer.

We flagged repeatedly that given the developments in the Middle East, we were more likely to drop a rate cut from our forecast for 2026 than add one.

Because of the shifting FOMC dynamics and their changed house view of the conflict and its resolution, Rabobank is now adjusting our Fed view.

Shifting FOMC dynamics

As we noted last week, in just a few months, the situation into which Warsh is parachuted has changed dramatically.

At the start of the year, we still expected that the new Chair could convince the FOMC of making three rate cuts before the year had ended.

After the outbreak of the war with Iran, we dropped one rate cut from our forecast.

However, the Strait of Hormuz is still disrupted today and gasoline prices and inflation have continued to rise.

Therefore, we repeatedly flagged that because of the developments in the Middle East, we were more likely to drop a rate cut from our forecast for 2026 than add one. Meanwhile, nonfarm payroll growth has been solid and the unemployment rate has remained at 4.3%.

As a result, the center of the FOMC has moved away from rate cuts.

What’s more, in recent weeks several Committee participants staked out their position.

Governor Waller’s conversion was the most notable. Last summer, he positioned himself as a Trump-loyalist, leading the charge to cut rates, because of increased downside risks to the labor market. After losing out to Warsh in the race for Fed Chair, he is shapeshifting again. Coincidentally, Waller jumped ship on the same day that Warsh was sworn in, making Warsh’s mission even more difficult than it already was.

Moreover, by staying on as Governor, Powell is effectively blocking the addition of another Trump-loyal Governor.

To the new Fed Chair it may feel as if he has been dropped behind enemy lines.

More inflation and less room to cut

Not completely unrelated, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has dragged on.

RaboResearch has changed its view of the conflict and its resolution and now thinks that the Strait will be closed until September.

This has led to an upward adjustment of our energy price forecasts, which also means that we will adjust our forecasts for US inflation. More details will be provided in our Monthly Outlook next week. With our outlook for inflation higher and more persistent and the FOMC taking defensive positions against the new Chair, we now change our Fed view as well.

Instead of a rate cut in September 2026 and another in December 2026, we now forecast the first cut in October 2026 and the second in January 2027.

So we shift our expected rate cuts one meeting into the future. This means that we now forecast only one rate cut in 2026, instead of two.

At the same time, we add a rate cut to 2027 (previously none). The reason why we still expect the Fed to cut before the end of the year is that the conclusion by many Fed speakers that the labor market has stabilized may be a bit premature. After all, we have only just seen the first back-to-back positive nonfarm payroll growth figures in almost a year. What’s more, the fallout from the war with Iran could have negative repercussions on the real economy, even in the US. It is still a long way to the end of the year and we could easily see a return of downside risk to the labor market before we are there. In this case, the FOMC may reintroduce its easing bias.

For example, in his May 22 speech, Governor Waller said: “With regard to future rate cuts, I am going to need to see improvement on inflation or a significant deterioration in the labor market before I would consider reducing the policy rate.”

Note that he uses “or” instead of “and”, which implies that even without improvement on inflation, the labor market could be a reason to cut.

The Fed may be talking tough now, but they have a history of getting wobbly knees when the economy starts to falter. The reason why we do not shift the previous September cut beyond October, is the midterm election.

If downside risks to the labor market rise in Q3, Warsh will have a strong incentive to push for a rate cut prior to Election Day.

Therefore, the October meeting is his last chance to help boost the chances of the Republican candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives by cutting rates and giving the stock market a lift.

Conclusion

Instead of delivering the rate cut that President Trump would have preferred, Warsh will likely have to remove the easing bias from the Fed statement at his first FOMC meeting as chair.

A sensible approach for Warsh would be to refrain from pushing for rate cuts in June and July, but instead introduce the analytical framework that will allow the FOMC to resume its prewar path of rate cutting later in the year.

If the current surge in inflation is purely a supply shock, the Fed should be able to look through the high headline inflation figures and focus on core inflation and inflation expectations.

If core inflation picks up substantially and inflation expectations become unanchored, then inflation pressures could become persistent.

However, if we see only a modest rise in core inflation and long-run inflation expectations remain stable, the Fed could resume its pre-war interest rate path, which was sloping downward.

Our forecast is now that the Fed will cut in October 2026 and January 2027, instead of September 2026 and December 2026.

So we move the rate cuts one meeting into the future.

This will still get the federal funds rate to what the median FOMC participant sees as the neutral level, only a little later.

The direction of Warsh’s mission is clear, but he may get there later than the administration might like.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/03/2026 - 11:55

The Duke of Sussex was spotted watching longtime pal Nacho Figueras' son Artemio compete in Montecito, California, on Monday.