Princess Eugenie walked down the aisle to marry Jack Brooksbank on Friday in one of the most anticipated weddings of the year, and she had quite a few surprises hidden up her Peter Pilotto and Christopher De Vos-designed sleeve.

While she didn't buck quite as many royal wedding traditions as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry did back in May, Eugenie's ceremony still had more than a few unexpectedly modern touches. Even some of her guests like Cara Delevingne shunned tradition with their stylish outfits.

From her gorgeous gown to her unconventional cake, here are all the ways Princess Eugenie's wedding broke from royal tradition.

Unlike Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle, Princess Eugenie chose not to wear a veil with her dress.

Opting out of a veil was a departure from typical royal wedding style, and was perhaps done to showcase the open-back design of the dress.

Eugenie also used her dress to make an empowering statement.

According to a statement released by Kensington Palace, Eugenie wanted the back of the dress to purposely showcase her scar from a scoliosis correctional surgery she had at age 12.

Most royal brides don't have a maid of honor, but Princess Beatrice filled the role for Eugenie's wedding.

Kate Middleton also bucked this tradition by having her sister Pippa Middleton as her maid of honor, but Meghan Markle decided to bring back the tradition by having only children in her bridal party.

There's something terrifying about a villain that's no longer recognizable as a human. From Pennywise the Clown in "It" to Leatherface in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" series, the following characters are so scary looking it makes you forget there's a real actor portraying them. 

Here are 12 actors you didn't know played your favorite, or least favorite, movie villains. 

Behind the makeup, "The Exorcist's" demon Pazuzu was really a young actress named Linda Blair.

According to the Washington Post, legendary special effects makeup artist Dick Smith took the lead on bringing Pazuzu to life — along with his then-assistant, Rick Baker.

To round out the terror and do practical effects for things that Blair simply couldn't do — such as turn her head around a full 360 degrees — SFX man Marcel Vercoutere built a robotic stand-in for Blair, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Although you couldn't recognize him, Robert Englund played Freddy Krueger in "A Nightmare on Elm Street."

Starting back at the beginning with makeup artist David Miller and gaining perhaps his most famous look with Crypt Keeper and "Chucky" creator Kevin Yagher, the character of Freddy was even featured in his own makeup documentary called "Nightmares in the Makeup Chair," reported IGN. 

Dr. William Weir from "Event Horizon" is really the actor Sam Neill.

VFX company Cinesite was responsible for many of the most disturbing visual aspects of the film — including the scene where Sam Neill's eyes are completely gouged out.

Cinesite's Sue Rowe described one of her favorite memories of working on this film for VFXblog:

"Charlie Tait and Dave Houghton were fresh out of animation college back then and they took on this shot. They used a cheap flatbed scanner to scan a cabbage leaf and a raw steak combo to make the interior eye sockets. One day my Mum came to the office to see what her 'little girl' was up to in this new crazy film industry and she saw us working on this shot. Charlie was adding blood pulsing out of the eyes — she ran out of the office screaming. I was actually pretty proud of the extra attention to detail. I heard that the director loved it!"

Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank tied the knot in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle on Friday.

The couple's royal wedding was full of touching highlights including Eugenie's decision to show off the scar from her corrective scoliosis surgery, Brooksbank's heart-melting words when he saw his soon-to-be wife walking down the aisle, and Prince William and Kate Middleton's rare display of public affection.

As usual, throughout the day, William and Middleton's two eldest children, Prince George and Princess Charlotte, stole the show with their playful posing and waving.

Below, see 12 of the young royals' most adorable moments from Eugenie and Brookbank's wedding.

Princess Charlotte, 3, and Prince George, 5, were both in Eugenie's wedding party.

The two were joined by Savannah and Isla Philips (the daughters of Peter and Autumn Phillips); Mia Tindall (the daughter of Zara and Mike Tindall); Maud Windsor (Princess Eugenie's goddaughter); Theodora Williams (the daughter of musician Robbie Williams and actress Ayda Field; and Louis de Givenchy (the son of Olivier de Givenchy, a JP Morgan executive, and his wife, Zoe).

Princess Charlotte briefly lost her balance while walking up the stairs of St. George's Chapel.

Page boy Louis de Givenchy also stumbled on the stairs, but both children recovered quickly.

Charlotte and Louis weren't the only attendees to battle the windy weather. Everyone from Cara Delevingne to Princess Beatrice had to hold onto their hats to keep them from flying away.

As guests waited for Eugenie to arrive at the church, Prince George was spotted joking around with Savannah Phillips.

Savannah, 7, made headlines back in June when she playfully put her hands over George's mouth as the royal family sang the national anthem at Trooping the Colour.

Join the conversation about this story »

• Lakers guard Lonzo Ball played with a bandage on his right arm through the team's preseason game against the Warriors on Wednesday.
• Ball wasn't injured, but instead was covering up his Big Baller Brand tattoo due to NBA rules about players promoting brands on the court.
• Ball isn't the first player to have an issue with branded tattoos this year, with J.R. Smith raising a similar issue earlier this month.

When the Los Angeles Lakers faced off against the Golden State Warriors in a preseason tune-up on Wednesday, Lonzo Ball took to the court with a bandage of some sort on his right arm.

Ball's bandage wasn't due to any sort of injury, but rather a strategically placed cover-up to conceal his tattoo of his family's Big Baller Brand "BBB" logo.

Ball got crafty with the bandage (or possibly just a piece of athletic tape, it's tough to tell), to avoid a fine from the NBA, as the league has made it clear they will not allow the promotion of non-partner brands on the court.

You can see the uncovered tattoo on Ball's arm during his media day appearance at right.

News of the rule first made the rounds ahead of this season due to J.R. Smith, whose new tattoo of the Supreme logo raised concerns from the league, prompting the NBA to contact Smith and inform him that he would be fined for every game he played with the logo visible.

When asked about Smith's tattoo, league spokesman Mike Bass told ESPN in a statement, "NBA rules prohibit players from displaying any commercial logos or corporate insignia on their body or in their hair."

It's an issue that has come up, however sparingly in the past — Smith's former teammate Iman Shumpert was once forced to remove an Adidas logo that he had shaved into his high-top fade.

We still don't know how the matter will play out through the season, but for now, it looks as though Ball is alright for the moment with covering up for game days.

Ball and the Los Angeles Lakers open their 2018-19 season on October 18 against the Portland Trail Blazers.

SEE ALSO: The NBA season hasn't even started yet and Trae Young already hit a game-winner from near half court

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What it takes to be an NFL referee

Cat owners who want to bring a dog into their home ― or dog owners looking to adopt a cat ― need to be strategic, since not all of our furry friends play well with others.

To compile a list of the most cat-friendly dog breeds, INSIDER consulted sources such as the American Kennel Club, PetHelpful, and Vetstreet, as well as pet forums on Quora.

Keep reading to learn about 12 dogs that get along well with cats, from beagles to bichon frisés.

Beagles are friendly, with an easy-going disposition.

According to the American Kennel Club, beagles are a natural choice for cat owners because they're friendly and have an easy-going disposition.

Bred to hunt in packs, these scenthounds play well with others. PetHelpful reports that beagles might chase cats outdoors, but will cohabitate peacefully (and even snuggle) inside.

Golden retrievers are playful, yet adaptable.

Golden retrievers are known to be playful but they're also adaptable, according to the AKC. This means that they're good with cats of varying ages and sizes.

In fact, a Quora user notes how his golden retriever and his cat were inseparable, writing that they "slept together, followed each other around, and groomed each other."

Cavalier King Charles spaniels are small and affectionate.

The Cavalier King Charles spaniel (a type of English toy spaniel) is a small, affectionate breed that gets along with humans and felines alike. Cavaliers, which range in size from 13 to 18 pounds, have "a penchant for smaller creatures," according to Animal Planet.

But as a Quora user observes, the relationship between a Cavalier and a cat might be dependent "on how the two are introduced and how positive or negative actions between them are reinforced daily."

• Some 30 million Facebook users were victims of the hacking attack it revealed recently.
• That attack exposed the personal information of many users, including their names, phone numbers, birth dates, and more.
• That kind of information could be used for identity theft and to compromise users' financial and other accounts, security and privacy experts say.
• The exposure of that data can also pose particular and obvious dangers to people who are trying to keep a low profile, such as victims of domestic violence.

If you're one of the victims of the recently revealed hack of Facebook, you should be extra careful on the internet — and extra watchful of your other online and offline accounts.

The data hackers gleaned from the social network could be used for identity theft, and to access accounts ranging from those at banks and other financial institutions to online stores. It also could be used in so-called spear phishing attacks, in which hackers use the information they know about particular users to send them personalized messages that convince them to leak their passwords or other critical data.

"Given the scale of this — which was really surprising — and how much information was scraped … people can be legitimately concerned," said Justin Brookman, director of privacy and technology policy at Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports.

Some 30 million accounts were compromised in the attack, which Facebook first announced two weeks ago. The hackers were able to gain access to names and phones numbers of nearly all of those users as well as personal details such as birth dates, relationship status, gender, and education and work histories for 14 million of them.

The exposure of those kinds of personal details can be particularly dangerous to people who are trying keep a low profile, such as those who have been the victims of domestic abuse or protestors worried about reprisals from their governments. It can also create problems for people who were trying to keep certain parts of their lives private from the wider world, such as their sexual orientation or their religious affiliations.

The data from Facebook could be used to access bank accounts

But it can be risky to everyday users as well. That's because in the hands of malicious actors, this data can be used to hijack accounts on other services besides Facebook.

The password reset feature on many sites asks users to answer certain security questions. Those questions often ask for just the kind of personal details that were revealed in the Facebook hack, Brookman said.

But it's not just online accounts that are at risk. Information such as names and birth dates can also be used to gain access to banking accounts or medical records over the phone, said John Simpson, director of privacy and technology at Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group. That kind of information "can be tremendously empowering" to hackers, he said.

"They can take that information and definitely parlay it into information that can scam the individual," he said. "Potentially, there's some real damage that can be done to people."

Even the leak of just a phone number can pose a risk. To protect their accounts on various websites, many users have been turning on two-factor authentication, a security technique that often requires users when logging into their accounts to enter a special code in addition to their passwords. Many sites send that code via the SMS text messaging system to users' cell phones.

Security researchers have known for years, though, that the SMS system is vulnerable to hacking attacks. By knowing a user's phone number, a malicious actor could potentially intercept the two-factor authentication code and use it to gain control of the user's account.

It could also be used in targeted email attacks

Another potential danger comes from spear-phishing attacks. Typically in such an attack, a hacker sends an email that induces a user to click on a link to a spoofed site and enter their login information. The malicious actor usually uses what they know about the target — their friends, their family, their life experiences — to convince them that the email is legitimate.

Even seemingly innocuous information about a person can be used in such attacks. The more data a hacker has about someone, the more believable they can make the email lure. One set of data that was exposed in the Facebook hack was the locations where users had checked in using Facebook's app.

A hacker might be able to take that information and purport to be a representative of a target's credit card company, potentially even saying that the company had noticed their card being used on the date and place of the check in, said Michelle Richardson, director of the privacy and data project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy group.

"These guys are really crafty," she said.

Because users often reuse passwords on multiple sites, they may find lots of their most sensitive and valuable accounts at risk if they fall victim to such a scam.

There are steps you can take to protect yourself

You can find out whether you were affected by the Facebook attack by logging into your account and going to a security page the company has set up. If you were affected, there are several steps you should take to protect yourself, security and privacy experts say:

• Put a freeze on your credit report with the major credit reporting agencies, such as Equifax. That will prevent criminals from using the information they gleaned about your from creating new financial accounts in your name. Thanks to a new law, credit freezes are now available for free.
• Keep a close eye on your financial statements to look out for mystery charges.
• Make sure you aren't using the same password in multiple places, and create new, unique ones if you are. A password manager such as LastPass can make it easier to create and keep track of your login information for different sites.
• Turn on two-factor authentication whenever you can, but especially on your most sensitive or valuable accounts. Even those such systems can be vulnerable to hacking attacks, they're still more secure than passwords alone.

Regardless of whether your account was affected, you might also want to consider deleting or deactivating your Facebook account, especially if you don't use it often. If you plan to keep your account, you should also think about limiting what you share on it.

"People share stuff on their Facebook profiles they wouldn't want shared with rest of world," said Brookman. He continued: "There's historical data that's out there about you that could potentially be leveraged against you or used to hack your account or compromise your friends'."

Now read:

• Facebook’s privacy 'bait and switch' confirms your worst fears about its unstoppable advertising impulses
• The departure of Instagram's cofounders is a bad thing for Facebook — but it could be even worse for the rest of us
• The FCC boss who repealed net neutrality says Google, Facebook and Twitter might need 'transparency obligations'

SEE ALSO: Facebook’s stock dropped by $120 billion this week, but critics are dead wrong for calling it ‘doomed’

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: British Airways has a $13 million flight simulator that taught us how to take off, fly, and land an airplane

• Foreign-policy experts say the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi is "embarrassing" and a "crisis" for President Donald Trump.
• Experts seem to disagree, however, on how big of a challenge this poses to Trump's overall agenda.
• They say the situation creates tension between Trump and the GOP foreign-policy establishment in Congress.
• Experts believe Trump won't do much about Khashoggi, and will let Congress take the lead.
• Khashoggi went missing after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul earlier this month, and is feared dead.

The disappearance of Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi has placed President Donald Trump in a precarious and "embarrassing" position, and it will complicate his agenda in Congress, foreign-policy experts say.

There is a great deal of concern over the message Trump is sending about America's commitment to human rights via his response to the situation, but experts disagree over how this will impact the US-Saudi relationship and Trump's foreign agenda in the long run.

There is consensus among experts, however, that this situation is creating tensions between Trump and key Senate Republicans on foreign affairs and he'll likely defer to them in terms of an overall response to Khashoggi's disappearance.

Khashoggi is missing and feared dead

Khashoggi, a US resident who wrote for The Washington Post, went missing earlier this month after entering the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and is feared dead. Turkish officials have accused the Saudis of sending in a 15-man team to torture, kill, and dismember Khashoggi's body before flying it back to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi journalist, who was often critical of Saudi Arabia in his reporting, went into the consulate on October 2 to obtain documents to marry his Turkish fiancée,Hatice Cengiz.

Cengiz said she waited for roughly 11 hours outside of the consulate but Khashoggi never came out. The Saudis have vehemently denied detaining or harming Khashoggi, and claimed he left the consulate. But they've provided no evidence to back up this assertion.

Meanwhile, the US intelligence community reportedly intercepted Saudis discussing a plan to capture Khashoggi prior to his disappearance under the direct orders of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Trump administration has denied it knew of such a plan.

Trump has expressed concern over the Khashoggi case, but he's under increasing pressure to address the situation more forcefully.

A bipartisan group of senators led by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker recently invoked the Magnitsky Act, a law requiring the president to investigate the incident and report back to the committee within 120 days on what is discovered and what he plans to do.

But Trump seems reluctant to punish the Saudis, whom the US has long had close economic and military ties with, and sees as a buffer against Iran in the Middle East. This week, for example, Trump said it would be a "tough pill to swallow" to stop billions of dollars worth of arms sales to the Saudis. But senators in both parties are pushing hard for the sales to cease in the wake of Khashoggi's disappearance.

In short, Trump is between a rock and a hard place over this disturbing situation.

Questions about 'Trump's disinterest in human rights'

David Rothkopf, a foreign-policy expert and visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Business Insider the Khashoggi case "is undoubtedly one of the roughest foreign-policy challenges Trump has faced thus far."

Rothkopf added, "It is tough because it complicates a relationship he has prioritized. It is tough because it is a relationship that has turned heavily on his own relationship with the Saudi leadership and that of his son-in-law Jared Kushner."

He feels the way Trump has handled the situation thus far has been "absolutely dreadful and insensitive." Rothkopf said Trump has "minimized" and been "slow to respond" to the case, setting a troubling precedent regarding the US government's position on human rights.

"[Trump] has explicitly said he values the commercial relationship with the Saudis above our values or our obligation to Jamal Khashoggi as a permanent resident of the US," Rothkopf said. "He has even minimized the importance of that relationship."

Trump this week downplayed Khashoggi's disappearance by noting he went missing in Turkey and was not a US citizen.

Rothkopf said a "strong American president" calls out allies, but Trump has failed in this regard.

"There are very real questions about whether Trump's disinterest in human rights and his repeated attacks on the press may actually have contributed to this case," Rothkopf added.

Rothkopf believes Trump will do "as little as possible" to address the situation and largely leave the matter up to Congress. Meanwhile, if Democrats retake the House in November, Rothkopf suspects the US-Saudi relationship will "deteriorate quite severely in the months ahead."

This could lead arms sales to be completely cut off and sanctions to be imposed via the Magnitsky Act, he said. It would also put pressure on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman "from within the kingdom where he has many rivals" and elsewhere in the region, Rothkopf added.

"This will lead to other fissures," Rothkopf said. "The images of Trump and the sword dancers and the glowing orb may haunt him come election time in 2020."

The Khashoggi disappearance 'is embarrassing to Trump'

Ian Bremmer, the president and founder of Eurasia Group, said Trump faces much bigger foreign-policy challenges than Khashoggi's disappearance and doesn't think it will have a "broader" impact on the president or America's agenda abroad.

Bremmer told Business Insider the current tensions between the US and China, dealing with Russian election interference and cyberattacks, and the Iran nuke deal withdrawal are all "much more challenging" for Trump.

The Khashoggi disappearance "is embarrassing to Trump and is causing a rift between the president and the foreign-policy establishment in the GOP," Bremmer said. But he added that the situation is "much more important to the media (and understandably so)" than to Trump's overall foreign-policy agenda.

In terms of Trump's response to the situation thus far, Bremmer said the president is in a good position to support any Senate-backed economic repercussions against Saudi Arabia moving forward.

"[Trump] already hit the Saudis before [the] Khashoggi episode by saying they 'wouldn’t last two weeks' without US support and should do more to bring a fair share to relationship, in this case meaning more oil production to bring prices down," Bremmer said. "That makes it easier for Trump to support any sanctions process that comes out of Senate."

Under Trump, Bremmer said the US-Saudi relationship is "better than they’ve been in a while." This is linked to the royal welcome Trump received in Saudi Arabia, the first foreign country he visited as president, and the fact the Saudis are spending a lot on US exports.

"Trump is far more transactional on human rights and related issues even than most American presidents" Bremmer said, contending any eventual consequences against the Saudis over Khashoggi will be "unlikely to hit at the core of the US-Saudi relationship."

'Trump sees this as a crisis'

Randa Slim, director of conflict resolution at the Middle East Institute, also does not see Khashoggi's disappearance as a major foreign-policy challenge for Trump and sees it as more of a roadblock in terms of his relationship with Congress.

"I do not think Trump looks at Khashoggi's assassination as a foreign policy challenge," Slim told Business Insider. "Trump sees this as a crisis which the Saudi leadership forced on him – a crisis not of his making and which will complicate his agenda especially in dealing with Congress."

Slim said Trump's vocal opposition to reducing arms sales to Saudi Arabia shows he's not planning on addressing the situation in a significant way. "Look at how he is dealing with Russia and Putin as the roadmap for how he will deal with Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince going forward," Slim said.

From a rhetorical standpoint, critics feel Trump has been troublingly soft on Russia and too deferential in terms of reacting to its interference in the 2016 presidential election. The Trump administration has imposed significant economic sanctions on Russia, among other diplomatic repercussions, but the president has at times exhibited a reluctance to do so.

In terms of the state of US-Saudi relations, Slim said the Khashoggi disappearance shows "the Saudi leadership is either not concerned about the US-Saudi relationship and/or thinks it can get away with murder without a major impact on the relationship."

Moving forward, Slim said the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the US will "proceed on two tracks."

Trump will continue to accommodate the Saudi government "despite its unwanton acts," Slim added, while Congress "will call the Saudi leadership to account."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 3 compelling reasons why we haven't found aliens yet

• Ford sales in China tanked 43% in September year-over-year.
• The drop is attributed to a confluence of factors, from Ford's makeover of the company to the Chinese economic slowdown.
• The growing trade war between the US and China also most likely played a role.
• Ford has been dealing with a series of maladies from President Donald Trump's various tariffs.

Ford's sales in China nosedived in September as a slew of factors, including President Donald Trump's trade war and a slowdown in the Chinese economy, slammed the company.

According to data released by the company Friday, overall sales in China fell 43% in September compared with the same month last year and were down 30% through the first nine months of 2018 compared with the same period in 2017.

Sales for each of the company's Chinese partnerships fell for the month:

• Changan Ford Automobile sales were down 55% in September compared with 2017.
• Jiangling Motors Corporation sales declined 15%.
• Imported Ford sales fell 16% for the month and were down 15% year-to-date.
• The only Ford brand to see positive sales growth was Lincoln, with a 1% gain for September and a 4% gain year-to-date.

The numbers, while more extreme, lined up with the general collapse in Chinese auto sales during the month. According to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, sales in the country tumbled 11.6% year-over-year in September, the largest drop in seven years.

There are numerous explanations for the collapse in sales for Ford and the Chinese auto market in general:

• China's economy has slowed in recent months, with the International Monetary Fund marking down gross-domestic-product growth projections for the country and investment in infrastructure and businesses also slowing.
• Another problem is the growing trade war between the US and China, which may be partly to blame for the slowdown. In particular, cars from both countries are now subject to tariffs, making it more expensive to import autos from the US to China and vice versa.
• Ford has warned the increased costs could depress sales, and the trade uncertainty contributed to the company's profit forecast cut in July.
• Additionally, while overall growth slowed in 2017, car sales in China were strong for the year.

Add up all of those elements, and you end up with the sales disaster.

The collapse in Chinese sales isn't the only trade-related problem for Ford. CEO Jim Hackett revealed that Trump's decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum coming into the US would cost the company $1 billion in 2018 and 2019.

The company also decided not to import a new SUV from China to the US, citing the trade war as the reason for the decision.

The trade war is exacerbating longstanding issues at the automaker, which is already carrying out a global restructuring. As part of the changeover, the company announced Monday that it would lay off a significant number of workers.

SEE ALSO: Here's exactly how Trump's trade war with China could affect you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

• The Trump administration is reportedly considering a new family separation policy for immigrants who cross the US-Mexico border with their children.
• Instead of forcibly splitting up immigrant families at the border, as authorities did under the "zero tolerance" immigration policy, the parents would face a "binary choice" to be held as a family in detention or have their children released without them.
• The renewed family separations push is being spearheaded by Trump's senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, who reportedly believed that the original "zero tolerance" policy was effective in deterring illegal immigration.

The Trump administration could soon revive its practice of separating immigrant families at the border by offering them a choice between indefinite detention and separation, The Washington Post reported Friday, citing senior administration officials.

The new policy would not exactly replicate the controversial "zero tolerance" immigration policy that caused a public uproar in the springtime, when authorities forcibly split more than 2,500 children from their parents.

Instead, immigrant families would face a "binary choice," meaning they could opt to stay together in detention as a family unit while their potentially yearslong immigration cases wind through the court system, or parents could choose to have their children released to government shelters and eventually turned over to other relatives or guardians.

The effort is the Trump administration's latest push to handle the growing number of Central American immigrants seeking asylum in the US in recent months.

"Career law enforcement professionals in the US government are working to analyze and evaluate options that would protect the American people, prevent the horrific actions of child smuggling, and stop drug cartels from pouring into our communities," deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley told The Post in a statement.

The Post also reported that the renewed family separations push is being spearheaded by Trump's senior policy adviser, Stephen Miller, one of the administration's staunchest immigration hardliners.

Miller reportedly believes that the zero-tolerance immigration policy had a deterrent effect on asylum-seekers crossing the border around the springtime, prompting fewer to cross in the summer months. Though the overall border-crossing apprehension numbers did fall in June and July, those months typically see a drop due to seasonal trends.

Customs and Border Protection data shows that even though illegal border-crossings remain near the bottom of a decades-long downward trend, the amount of family units arrested by Border Patrol is unusually high.

In previous years, the bulk of the border-crossers were comprised of single men and unaccompanied children. But in recent months, Border Patrol agents have been finding massive groups of dozens — or even hundreds — of immigrants traveling together, often led by smugglers.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

• The Department of Defense is closing the bidding process for JEDI, a $10 billion cloud computing process, on Friday. 
• Only one company can win the deal, which will be awarded in April 2019.
• Amazon is the frontrunner to win, with Microsoft seen as the other major contender. 
• Google dropped out, saying that it could conflict with its corporate values
• Oracle and IBM have lodged formal protests against the bidding process, saying that it's misguided to have the deal rely only on one cloud provider.
• Competitors for the deal have even hinted that they believe it's weighted in Amazon's favor: "When you delve into the nitty gritty [requirements of JEDI], it’s clear that some of them are written with one company in mind,"an IBM executive tells Business Insider.

The deadline for bids on a $10 billion cloud computing contract from the Department of Defense closes on Friday. The deal won't be officially awarded until April 2019, but the process has already drawn plenty of controversy since the bidding process officially began in July.

The deal, called the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract, is winner-take-all, meaning it will only be awarded to a single company. And right now, Amazon Web Services is the runaway favorite to be that winner.

“It’s between AWS and Microsoft Azure, to be honest,” said Renee Murphy, a principal analyst at Forrester. “AWS is probably in the running to get it. They have the strongest relationship with the top secret levels of the government.”

Amazon is considered the frontrunner because of  the certifications it already has, and its existing relationship with the government. In 2013, the CIA awarded the company a $600 million contract, and last year, AWS introduced Secret Region, a service designed for the CIA that can handle data classified at the “Secret” level.

IBM and Oracle are still in the running for the contract, along with AWS and Microsoft. Google bowed out of the competition earlier this week, saying it wouldn’t align with corporate values, but also because portions of the contract were out of scope with their current government certifications.

Rival tech titans, however, have suggested that the process was flawed from the very start, in such a way that the retailer was the only company that could win. 

“When you delve into the nitty gritty [requirements of JEDI], it’s clear that some of them are written with one company in mind,"said Sam Gordy, General Manager for IBM US Federal, in an interview with Business Insider. Oracle and IBM have both filed formal protests against the Department of Defense over the JEDI contract. 

The Department of Defense declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Amazon and Oracle declined to comment. Microsoft and Google did not respond to a request for comment at the time of publication.

The JEDI protests

Several companies have voiced their opposition to the winner-take-all approach, saying that a multi-cloud solution would be stronger and that JEDI’s requirements seem aimed at one specific company.

In August, Oracle filed a protest against the Pentagon's decision to award the contract to one company, instead of multiple. On Wednesday, days before bids were due, IBM announced it would also file a protest against the Department of Defense's insistence on using only one cloud, instead of several from different companies. Even Microsoft, which is seen as the other major contender for JEDI, is said to have criticized the process.

“The focus here is ensuring that we do the right thing for national security,” said Gordy. “We protest because we believe that’s the right thing to do. Businesses are all moving to a multi-cloud environment because of resiliency in their system, flexibility and security.”

As for Google: The search giant dropped out saying that the JEDI contract could conflict with its corporate values, just months after employees protested management for the company's involvement in Project Maven — a program with the Pentagon to use artificial intelligence to analyze drone footage. However, the company also chimed in against the notion of relying on a single cloud.

"Had the JEDI contract been open to multiple vendors, we would have submitted a compelling solution for portions of it," a spokesperson said in a statement. "Google Cloud believes that a multi-cloud approach is in the best interest of government agencies, because it allows them to choose the right cloud for the right workload."

Amazon is leading, and Google dropped out

Right now, Amazon is the only company that holds the highest security authorization to handle government data. To work for the Defense Department, companies need additional clearance from the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), which gives out security authorizations from IL-2 to IL-6, with IL-6 handling information rated Top Secret.

According to the JEDI contract requirement, companies should be able to manage IL-5 data. According to a publicly-viewable document from the Department of Defense, Oracle, Microsoft and IBM have received IL-5 authorizations for certain cloud services they offer. Google, which dropped out of the race earlier this week, only holds the IL-2 requirement. On the other hand, Amazon is the only company that holds IL-6 authorization, which applies to its AWS Secret Commercial Cloud Services for government agencies. 

“I think frankly, that cybersecurity plan was what led [Google] to withdrawing,” said Rick Holgate, senior director and analyst at Gartner. “That’s consistent with attitude they’ve taken with the US federal government. If [its cloud offering is] satisfactory, they don’t feel a need or inclination to go beyond that or go further.”

Compared to other JEDI competitors, Google is also behind on the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), a security certification on handling government data. Google was certified in March to handle data at the “moderate” level, while Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle have certifications at the "high" level for their government cloud services.

That's why it makes sense that Google backed off, Murphy says.  The process involves not only updating systems to meet federal requirements, but also documentation and hiring third party assessors to scan and hack the system for vulnerabilities.

“The step between moderate and high is extreme,” Murphy said. “If you’re not in any form of certification process currently, it’s going to take you months and months to get into the pipeline. The government isn’t going to do business with you if you’re not FedRAMP certified.”

Besides, it's expensive: Achieving this certification is an expensive process, as it costs $2.25 million to achieve authorization and $1 million annually to maintain it. Google could certainly afford it, but it is a cost. 

Catching up to Amazon

Microsoft isn't backing away from the competition, however, and some think that it's just as viable a competitor as Amazon. 

On Tuesday, Microsoft said it’s on track by early next year to match Amazon and obtain the IL-6 "Top Secret" classified data certification.

“There’s this thinking that it’s wired for AWS,” Holgate said. “Microsoft is equally valid in this space. Based on their track record, they have the ability to deliver the contract they’re looking for. It’s a starting point to be a multiple cloud environment for the Department of Defense.”

As for the other two companies in the running, IBM previously had a cloud deal with the Army and expects to be able to obtain that IL-6 authorization. IBM currently only has a FedRAMP moderate certification, but it is "confident we can secure all certifications required to support JEDI," an IBM spokesperson said. Oracle also has an active relationship with the Pentagon, as the Department of Defense uses many of the company's databases. 

Even if other companies are able to catch up, Amazon has the advantage of already being able to fulfill the top government requirements.  If another company were to win the contract, it has a tight timeline to get its authorization in order. It must be able to host classified information within six months, and top-secret information within nine months; Amazon could do it today, in theory. 

“There’s nothing that would prohibit them from meeting these requirements as long as they’re willing to invest,” Holgate said. “I think what may have given Oracle and IBM pause with the JEDI solicitation is the scope and magnitude of the services they’re looking for. They’re requiring services at all levels of classification, which also involves IL-6.”

Still, Holgate points out that the government will offer other cloud contracts in the coming years.

“There tends to be this discussion around JEDI on the winner-take-all vehicle,” Holgate said. “It’s not in any way a winner-take-all vehicle. It’s certainly a pretty significant vehicle. Whoever wins it will have a significant contract. There’s other cloud contracts out there. The idea that there will be one cloud provider in the Department of Defense forever is misleading.”

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What marijuana looks like under the microscope

• The window for biotech companies to raise money and go public has seemed unending over the past few years.
• Particularly in the past year, private companies have raised staggeringly big early funding rounds before turning around to tap the public markets for even more cash.
• But the bets haven't always panned out for investors. Of the biotech companies that have gone public in the past six years, fewer than half have generated a positive return, according to a new report.

For fledgling biotechs hoping to find the money to fund their plans to tackle everything from cancer to Alzheimer's disease, the public markets have been a good avenue over the past few years.

In the first nine months of 2018 alone, there have been 47 biotech initial public offerings, raising $4.6 billion in capital. That's already more than in all of both 2016 and 2015. In the biggest biotech IPO of the year, the cancer drugmaker Allogene this week brought in $324 million in a public offering that valued the company at $2.2 billion.

But not every biotech investment has been a roaring success.

According to a Leerink review over the past six years, there have been 269 biotech IPOs that raised a combined $24.1 billion. But fewer than half of those IPOs have generated a positive return.

About 20% of the companies made up about 80% of those positive returns. And nearly half of the IPOs had an annual loss of 10% or more.

"The vast majority of the money invested in biotech is not going to generate any return," Geoff Porges, a Leerink analyst, said. "Everybody's going to have a lot of losers in their biotech portfolios. The winners have to carry the freight for the losers."

Which is to say, not every bet is panning out, despite record amounts of capital being poured into the sector. Investing in drug development is an inherently risky prospect. Biotech companies are developing experimental treatments for diseases, running clinical trials to see whether a given drug works. When one doesn't, the stock could crater and lose most if not all of its value, depending on what else the company has in the works.

"You really have to be selective," Les Funtleyder, a healthcare portfolio manager at E Squared Capital, told Business Insider. "I think that's the importance of doing due diligence and spending a lot of time on these things and hoping you get a positive return out of it."

While the biotech sector enjoyed an 18.5% surge in 2017, its performance has come back to earth since then. The Nasdaq Biotech Index is up 1.5% this year, compared with a 3.2% rise from the S&P 500.

See also:

• The market for biotech IPOs is red hot — here are the top 10 of 2018
• 'We're not going to follow the hype': Biotech VCs are concerned by the staggering size of early-stage startup funding

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why horseshoe crab blood is so expensive

• A Bloomberg report from last week alleged that Chinese spies had been able to malicious chips into servers made by SuperMicro, an American company.
• All parties involved have denied the report, including, most recently, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, during a Senate hearing.
• Security professionals are also increasingly distancing themselves from the claims. 

Last week, Bloomberg published a bombshell report about how Chinese spies managed to implant chips into computer servers made by SuperMicro, an American company.

If true, the report raised questions about whether sensitive US government and corporate data may have been accessed by Chinese spies, and whether it's all data stored on PCs is essentially at risk.

But since then, a series of statements from government officials and information security professionals — including some named in the stories — have cast doubt about the report's main claims. 

On Wednesday, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security denied the report in a Senate hearing — the strongest on-the-record government denial yet. 

"With respect to the article, we at DHS do not have any evidence that supports the article," Kirstjen Nielsen said on Wednesday. "We have no reason to doubt what the companies have said."

(During the same hearing, FBI Director Chris Wray said that he couldn't confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation into compromised SuperMicro equipment, which was claimed in the Bloomberg report.)

Nielsen's denial comes on the same day as a senior NSA official said that he worries that "we're chasing shadows right now."

"I have pretty great access, [and yet] I don’t have a lead to pull from the government side," Rob Joyce, perhaps the most public-facing NSA cybersecurity official, said at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce meeting.

"We're just befuddled," Joyce said, according to Cyberscoop. 

Alex Stamos, Facebook's former head of security, called Joyce's denial "the most damning point" against the story that he had seen. 

The increasing doubt about Bloomberg's claims come as lawmakers demand additional answers based on the series of reports. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Marco Rubio asked SuperMicro to cooperate with law enforcement in a sharply worded letter on Tuesday. Senator John Thune also sent letters to Amazon and Apple, which Bloomberg said had purchased compromised servers. 

Sources walk back 

But government officials aren't the only people who are now having second thoughts about the stories. 

One prominent hardware security expert, Joe Fitzpatrck, who was named in the story, ended up doing a revealing podcast with a trade outlet that's more technical than Bloomberg, Risky Business.

Journalists who write stories based on anonymous sources often call up experts to fill out some of the more general parts of a story and improve the story's flow. 

But Fitzpatrick said that's not what happened.

"I feel like I have a good grasp at what’s possible and what’s available and how to do it just from my practice," Fitzpatrick explained. "But it was surprising to me that in a scenario where I would describe these things and then he would go and confirm these and 100% of what I described was confirmed by sources."

He went on to say that he heard about the story's specifics in late August and sent an email expressing major doubt. "I heard the story and it didn’t make sense to me. And that’s what I said. I said, 'Wow I don’t have any more information for you, but this doesn’t make sense.'"

Several notable information security professionals used Fitzpatrick's quotes as a jumping-off point to express their doubts with the story: 

Bloomberg sticks by its story

Bloomberg's report was obviously explosive and had immediate effects.

Super Micro lost over 40% of its value the day of the report. Apple and Amazon, which the report said had bought compromised servers, fiercely denied the report in public statements. 

While Bloomberg put out a statement that said that it stood by its reporting shortly after the first story, the loudest institutional support for the story came in a followup story by Bloomberg that said new evidence of hacked Supermicro hardware was found in a U.S. telecom.

Bloomberg didn't name the affected telecom. 

"The more recent manipulation is different from the one described in the Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, but it shares key characteristics: They’re both designed to give attackers invisible access to data on a computer network in which the server is installed; and the alterations were found to have been made at the factory as the motherboard was being produced by a Supermicro subcontractor in China," according to the Bloomberg followup report. 

But even the source for the followup now says he's "angry" about how the story turned out. 

"I want to be quoted. I am angry and I am nervous and I hate what happened to the story. Everyone misses the main issue," which is that it's an overall problem with the hardware supply chain, not a SuperMicro-specific issue, Yossi Appleboum told Serve The Home. 

But everyone says it's possible

But the tricky thing about Bloomberg's story is that nearly everyone agrees something like it could happen, it just didn't happen the way the report suggests. 

Security experts agree that the security of the factories that make electronics is an ongoing issue, even if no malicious chips have been found yet. 

"What we can tell you though, is it's a very real and emerging threat that we're worried about," Sec. Nielsen said shortly after saying she had no evidence in favor of the story. 

And as one manufacturing expert told Business Insider, "I don't actually think it's hard to inject stuff that the brand or design team didn't intentionally ask for."

Chinese industrial espionage has been an issue for many years, and it's a talking point for President Donald Trump, who accused Chinese exchange students of being "spies" earlier this year in a conversation with CEOs including Apple CEO Tim Cook. 

But there is evidence that Chinese spies do spy on American companies. Earlier this week, a Chinese officer was extradited to the United States to face espionage charges related to stealing secrets from companies including GE Aviation. 

The FBI also arrested a Chinese national earlier this year who had worked for Apple and allegedly was taking self-driving car information to a little-known Chinese startup. 

So there's a lot of evidence that there are spies who are actively working to steal American industrial secrets. Just maybe not with malicious chips inserted through the supply chain — yet. 

SEE ALSO: 'Siri, I'm getting pulled over': A new shortcut for iPhones can automatically record the police

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple took another subtle jab at Facebook during its iPhone XS event

The world is not as it seems. Just beyond the limits of our vision exists a miniature universe that beckons to be explored by curious, oversize humans.

Microscopes give us a window into that tiny cosmos, and talented photographers and videographers from around the world have used the tools for centuries to document it in stunning detail. But the equipment and techniques to take microscope photos get better with each passing year.

In honor of the beauty and scientific importance of micrographs, as such pictures are called, the Nikon Small World contest rounds up the best images every year and awards prizes to the top 20 entries. This year marks the 44th competition.

Judging involves poring over thousands of photos, spotting fakes and non-microscopic images, and then assessing the technique, subject matter, and "wow" factor of the remainder.

What you see above is the first-place image, which was taken by Al Habshi in the United Arab Emirates. It shows the compound eye of a half-inch-long Asian red palm weevil, also known as Metapocyrtus subquadrulifer, decorated with brilliant green scales.

"Not all people appreciate small species, particularly insects," Habashi said in a press release. "Through photomicrography we can find a whole new, beautiful world which hasn't been seen before. It's like discovering what lies under the ocean's surface."

To see all of the photos the judges picked as winners, keep scrolling.

SEE ALSO: These award-winning microscope photos reveal a bizarre universe just out of reach

DON'T MISS: Award-winning footage of the microscopic world around us

This cluster of reproductive cells within a fern won second-place.

This is third place: a spittlebug nymph huddling inside a protective coat of bubbles.

Ever seen a peacock feather this close? This is the fourth-place winner.

• Chick-fil-A is celebrated for its peerless customer service that the company maintains thanks to dedicated support of its employees
• The privately held company has reported sales growth in every single year since its founding back in 1946.
• After a spat of controversy surrounding anti-same-sex marriage issues in 2012, Chick-fil-A has revitalized itself with a focus on quality food instead of on politics or religion.

The success story of Chick-fil-A, the most profitable fast-food chain in America on a per-location basis, began with a diner opened in the right place at the right time.

In 1946, the late Chick-fil-A founder and longtime chair and CEO Samuel Truett Cathy opened a diner named the Dwarf Grill. It was located in Hapeville, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta.

In December of the following year, the Ford Motor Company opened an assembly plant adjacent to Cathy's restaurant, which provided a steady stream of customers and revenue.

The next piece of the success puzzle: A pressure fryer that allowed cooks to churn out fried chicken sandwiches as quickly as fast food chains like McDonald's or Burger King could make hamburgers.

A few years later, in 1967, the first Chick-fil-A restaurant was opened. According to Franchise Times, Chick-fil-A is one of the fastest growing fast-food franchises, with over 2,000 stores across the US.

But while steady, the expansion has not been rapid, and therein lies the key to this company's success: Caution and control from the top down.

Management is hands-on

Getting the chance to run a Chick-fil-A franchise is extremely difficult — which is part of the reason the company is so successful. Let's take a look at some of the language from the company's own "Become an Operator" webpage:

"Chick-fil-A Operators must successfully complete an extensive, multi-week training program prior to taking over operation of a franchised Chick-fil-A restaurant business. With additional development courses and franchise support available, Chick-fil-A Operators are equipped to handle decisions and reap the rewards of a challenging business."

The page goes on to detail qualities the company looks for in its operators, such as "a proven track record in business leadership," demonstrably successful management of your own money, and a commitment to "have no other active business venture."

They also lay out reasons "this is not the right opportunity for you," which include interest in "passive investment in a business," requests to build a Chick-fil-A "at a specified location," and if you are "seeking a multi-unit franchise."

So in other words, they are saying that if you want to operate a Chick-fil-A, you do it where they tell you, you operate only one restaurant, and you do it yourself, managing hands-on and giving it your all.

At first blush, those stipulations might seem off-putting, but in fact the company receives as many as 20,000 franchise applications annually but only approves about 80. Maybe the fact that accepted applicants need lay out only $10,000 helps explain the allure, helped by the average yearly per-unit revenue greater than $4 million dollars.

Chick-fil-A cares about its employees

Only a select few people get the privilege of running a Chick-fil-A, and each of these operators are in turn encouraged to run their location with a dedication to caring and compassion for their employees.

Franchisees have been known to cover costs for a worker's education or support them during a personal emergency, or to encourage employees to follow their dreams, even if doing so will ultimately lead the worker to leave the chain.

This culture of caring seems to have directly translated to how Chick-fil-A employees treat customers. In 2018, for the third year in a row, the company was rated Americans’ most beloved fast-food restaurant in the American Customer Satisfaction Index's annual survey.

Chick-fil-A is committed to quality food

Chick-fil-A thrives because customers value the pleasant dining experience they have come to count on from the restaurant, an experience that likely results from the top-down corporate culture of the company.

The fact that their food consistently receives high marks for taste doesn't hurt, though. Nor does a growing commitment to a healthier menu.

Over the course of the last ten years, Chick-fil-A proactively removed all trans fats from its foods, committed to antibiotic-free meats by 2019, and established an Innovation Center where food scientists, dietitians, and chefs work in tandem to develop recipes.

Taken as a whole, the company's commitment to service and quality has led to a success story like few others in the food industry.

SEE ALSO: I worked at Subway for 4 years — here's what employees know that customers don't

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What activated charcoal actually does to your body

• Since the Citizens United decision, companies have been able to donate millions of unregulated dollars to political causes as a form of protected free speech.
• Behind many of the largest corporate contributions are influential CEOs on the left and the right, such as Sheldon Adelson and Tom Steyer, who hope that in exchange Congress will work to push their political agendas.
• Here are 10 companies that are influencing politics by donating huge amounts of money to political groups in 2018.

Before 2010, companies weren't able to independently spend money on politics to influence federal elections, according to the Daily News.

However, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision declared that spending money on political causes qualified as free speech protected by the First Amendment. The decision opened the door for unlimited political expenditures by corporations and unions (provided that they weren't giving money to campaigns directly).

Campaign contributions directly to political candidates are limited for individuals and companies alike. But since 2010, companies can pour millions of unregulated and uncapped "soft money" into independent Super Political Action Committees (PACs) to influence the outcomes of federal elections without contributing to an individual candidate.

Unlike regular PACs, which can only accept contributions of up to $5,000 from individuals and nothing from unions and corporations, Super PACs can accept "dark money" from donors that shield their identities through shell corporations and political nonprofits who don't have to reveal their donors.

Open Secrets has compiled a list of the largest organizational political contributors to Democratic and Republican or liberal and conservative outside groups. (We’ve excluded unions and nonprofits, which are also on the list.) The totals include political donations by employees of the companies, their PACs, and their treasuries.

Here are the top 10 corporate contributors so far in the 2018 election cycle.

SEE ALSO: 11 books that will make you smarter about politics

Las Vegas Sands

When you combine the money contributed by Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas Sands casino (almost $28 million) and the nonprofit Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment and Research ($27 million) run by his wife, Dr. Miriam Adelson, their $55.7 million in campaign contributions for the 2018 cycle alone makes the Adelson family one of the biggest political donors.

According to Bloomberg, Sheldon Adelson has contributed over $200 million to conservative candidates and causes in recent years.

Uline Corporation

The Uline Corporation, run by Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, sells office supplies through a thick catalog, the print version of which includes conservative political commentary from Elizabeth Uihlein, according to Politico.

Uline has donated $31.7 million so far in 2018, more than it spent for the 2016 cycle, according to Open Secrets. The vast majority of that money went to Republicans. Their soft money donations have soared since the Citizens United decision in 2010.

Fahr LLC

Fahr LLC is a privately owned company that manages the wealth of Tom Steyer, former hedge fund manager and current political activist. According to Open Secrets, Fahr LLC has donated $29.4 million to the current election cycle so far, and that may be just the beginning, since the corporation's 2016 contributions topped $90 million.

Steyer is the driving force behind Need to Impeach, an organization and super PAC trying to get Trump out of office. CNN reported that he has pledged to spend at least $30 million on Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives in 2018, as well as $40 million toward impeachment.

• New York Times bestselling author Suze Orman participated in a panel about women and money with Adam Auriemma, editor-in-chief of Money Magazine, and Farnoosh Torabi, host of the podcast "So Money."
• Orman encourages everyone to "step towards your money, rather than away from it."
• One way to overcome the fear of investing is by contributing a small amount of money to low-cost index funds each month and watching it grow, she said.

Bestselling personal finance author Suze Orman may have officially retired to the Bahamas, but she's still doling out timeless money advice.

Orman recently talked with Adam Auriemma, editor-in-chief of Money Magazine, and Farnoosh Torabi, host of the podcast "So Money," on a panel about a revamped edition of her bestselling book "Women & Money" in the wake of the #MeToo movement. 

Orman describes the book as "a personal educational system ... for women who want to be strong, smart, and secure." She said what happens to your money directly impacts your quality of life, not anyone else's, so she's encouraging women to take charge. 

"It's so hard to just say one action item without knowing who I'm talking to or whatever, but the main action really I would say to somebody is step towards your money, rather than away from it," she said on the podcast when asked about her best advice.

She's talking about making smart investment decisions, like investing in low-cost index funds, which she calls "the winning ticket."

"Here's what I found works so great: women love when things are on sale. They do. They wait, they'll buy it cheaper. They love that," Orman said. "You explain dollar cost averaging to them, and why buying these stocks on sale is exactly what they want to do." She suggests investing with a small amount of money each month that you'd be comfortable losing, such as $100. You can even do it through contributions to your 401(k), she said.

"As soon as they get that, it's okay, and they'll be better off when the market goes down for the long run, because they're buying more shares. We've taken the fear out of it," Orman said. 

John Bogle, founder and former CEO of the Vanguard Mutual Fund Group, wrote in his book "The Little Book of Common Sense Investing" that index funds work for two reasons: they're low cost and broadly diverse, eliminating risk.

SEE ALSO: Personal finance guru Suze Orman says you need at least $5 million to retire early

DON'T MISS: 8 successful people share their best advice on how to quit a job

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A financial planner reveals the 2 easiest ways to improve your finances

• More and more people are staying in luxury extended-stay hotels for months at a time, choosing the convenience and amenities over apartments and Airbnbs.
• At Roost Apartment Hotels in Philadelphia, suites come with full kitchens, 4K Apple TVs, Chemex coffee makers, and 100-year-old rugs.
• A stay in a one-bedroom ranges from $225 to $295 per night but can be as low as $175 a night for a monthly stay.

Living in a hotel is an extravagant and unattainable concept for many.

But for wealthy families and individuals who want the comfort and coziness of an Airbnb but would rather avoid the unpredictability and what can be a hassle of a check-in process, an increasingly popular option is to stay in a luxury extended-stay hotel. 

Roost Apartment Hotels in Philadelphia offer luxurious, home-like apartments that can be rented on a weekly or monthly basis. They're often in central urban areas and offer much more personality than traditional corporate extended stay hotel rooms, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

"You feel you are in an apartment that could be your home," David Grasso, who founded Roost with Randall Cook, told Forbes. "We designed these apartments to create a sense of comfort, a sense of place, a sense of enlightenment."

The suites come with full kitchens with cookware and utensils, Bosch washer and dryers, 100-year-old Turkmen rugs, 4K Apple TVs, and Chemex coffee makers. Some offer common lounge areas, fitness centers, conference rooms, and valets.  Guests also have access to a concierge, weekly housekeeping, free bike shares, free high-end coffee beans, dog walking, and the option to arrange for a personal trainer.

A booking search for a 30-day stay from Nov. 30 to Dec. 30, 2018 at Roost's Midtown location revealed rates starting at $140 per night for a studio suite, or $4,200 total. Rates went all the way up to $270 per night, or $12,300 for the month, for the Presidential two-bedroom apartment suite.

While that may be pricier than a typical apartment, some guests find extended-stay hotels to be a bargain, according to the Wall Street Journal. After all, there is no putting down a deposit, no buying furniture, and no worrying about paying internet and utility bills. You also don't need to give 30, 60, or 90 days notice when moving out, as most apartments require.

"I didn't have to return a cable box or cancel the electric," finance executive Robert Wolfangel, who spent more than a year staying with his family at Roost for about $5,250 a month, told the Journal. "It was painless."

Staying in these upscale extended-stay hotels seems to be a rising trend. The number of extended-stay hotel rooms is up to more than 456,000, Jan Freitag, senior vice president at STR, a data provider to the hotel industry, told the Journal. That's a nearly 34% jump from just five years ago.

And according to Freitag, these rooms are occupied 77% of the time, which is higher than the average US hotel occupancy rate of 70.2%. 

SEE ALSO: Disappointing photos show what 9 top luxury destinations look like in real life

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What happens when you sleep in your contacts

• Warren Buffett's estimated net worth is $88.3 billion.
• But you wouldn't know the investor is America's third-richest man by his frugal lifestyle.
• Buffett lives modestly and is one of the world's most generous philanthropists, opting to give away most of his billions to charity.

Warren Buffett, America's third-richest man, has increased his net worth by around $10 billion in the past year, according to the Forbes 400, which was released on Wednesday. But what else would you expect from the "Oracle of Omaha," who began building his wealth at age 11? 

Now 88, Buffett's estimated net worth stands at $88.3 billion — but you wouldn't know it by Buffett's frugal ways.

Still living in the house he bought in the 1950s and driving an equally modest car, Buffett prefers to keep and grow his money rather than take it out of the bank. Not one for lavish purchases, he spends relatively little of his billions — except when it comes to philanthropy. 

Buffett is regarded as one of the most generous philanthropists in the world, having donated more than $46 billion since 2000.

However he uses his money, not much is spent on himself. See how Buffett spends — or doesn't spend — his billions.

SEE ALSO: 24 mind-blowing facts about Warren Buffett and his $87 billion fortune

DON'T MISS: Bill Gates is worth $95 billion and he plans to give most of it away — here's how he spends his money now, from a luxury car collection to incredible real estate

Warren Buffett has a net worth of $88.3 billion, making him the world's third richest person.

Source: Forbes

He began building his wealth by investing in the stock market at age 11 and currently runs Berkshire Hathaway — but you wouldn't know he's a billionaire by the way he spends his money.

Source:Forbes

He previously told CNBC and Yahoo Finance's "Off the Cuff" that he's "never had any great desire to have multiple houses and all kinds of things and multiple cars."

Source:CNBC

• Parenting doesn't come with a universal guidebook, and there are many ways to approach different aspects of parenting.
• Parents aren't perfect, and there may be times when you wish you had done something different.
• But you're not alone — here are 30 parenting mistakes every mom and dad makes.

Whether it's caused by lack of sleep, harried schedules, multitasking, stress, or inherent human fallibility, parents make mistakes. We also get it right sometimes, too (despite what our kids may think).

For every cringe-worthy slip-up a parent makes, the rest of us have likely done the same thing a dozen times.

Though we all have our faults, kids are kids are resilient and forgiving. They can tell that you're trying your best even as you spill a pot full of pasta, forget their backpacks for the second time in three days, or call them by the dog's name.

Here are 30 parenting mistakes pretty much anyone with kids has made.

SEE ALSO: 8 things my parents let me do that I would never let my kids do

1. We let our kids fall

No loving person ever wants to injure a child, but kids get hurt by accident all the time.

In some cases, this may come in the form of a caregiver accidentally dropping a child, but the fall could also be a result of a child toppling out of a high chair or off a changing table.

A recent study released by Pediatrics estimated that as many as 66,000 kids under three in the US alone sustained injuries from furniture or other kids’ products per year.

2. We overschedule kids' lives

According to another study published in Pediatrics, kids have less free time than in previous generations. Parents are loading up their children's schedules with sports, music, dance, tutoring, and so on.

Less free time can deprive children of the cognitive, physical, social, and emotional benefits play can provide, according to the research.

3. We give too much choice

Kids need to develop a sense of independence, and parents can encourage that by giving them the chance to make their own decisions. But a young child's choices should be limited to a small selection of options.

Think: "Would you like a plum or a pear?" and not "What fruit do you want?" Or "Would you like the red striped shirt or the blue dinosaur shirt?" not "What do you want to wear?"