TECHALLOVERUS

 Pet insurance plans for cats and dogs including lifetime and accident-only cover to protect your pet and your pocket. Get a quote online today.

Get Started today 

https://app.theaffilo.com/track?linkmid=11479881&linkaffid=47049417

Freecash has been around since 2020, and since then we have paid out over $60,000,000 to our 53.905.000 users. We pay our users to complete small tasks online, allowing them to work whenever and wherever they want. 

What is Freecash? 

Freecash is a GPT (get-paid-to) platform, sometimes referred to as a micro task site. We connect individuals who want to make extra money with companies looking to do market research and to get new users testing their apps and games. 

We pay our users to complete small tasks online, like answering questions on a survey. You can invest as much or as little time as you want, and you will always know how much money you can earn before starting a task.  

You will not become a millionaire with a GPT site like Freecash, but you can meaningfully boost your income by completing tasks in your spare time. 

How does it work? 

Here is how Freecash and similar GPT sites work: 

A company looking for help with market research, or for new users to try their app, will approach us. 

We create either a survey or a series of in-app tasks, which fairly reward our users for their time.

Our users complete the survey, or try the new app, and earn money on their Freecash accounts. 

When our users are ready to cashout and withdraw the money they have earned, they can do so however they want.  

It really is as simple as that; complete tasks, earn credit, withdraw your cash. You are effectively being paid for market research. And don't worry about finding a survey or app that interests you, there is a massive range of tasks to pick from, with more tasks added every day. 

Join today

https://app.theaffilo.com/track?linkmid=11489511&linkaffid=47049417

 https://app.theaffilo.com/short/20Sl4man23DY

In a move that blurs the lines between Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. like never before, the United States government has acquired a nearly 10% equity stake in Intel Corporation.

This historic transaction, valued at approximately $8.9 billion, effectively converts previously allocated CHIPS and Science Act grants into a direct ownership position, creating a de facto U.S. sovereign wealth fund with one of America’s most iconic technology companies as its cornerstone asset.

https://app.theaffilo.com/short/20Sl4man23DY

The deal is a high-stakes gamble, born from a confluence of geopolitical anxiety, corporate vulnerability, and raw political pressure. It’s a move that could either secure America’s technological future or become a cautionary tale of industrial policy gone wrong.

Let’s talk about this radical bet this week, and we’ll close with my Product of the Week: a new 16-inch business laptop from HP.

An Offer Intel Couldn’t Refuse

To understand how this happened, one must appreciate the immense pressure Intel and its leadership have been under. The company, once the undisputed king of silicon, has spent the better part of a decade watching rivals like TSMC and Samsung pull ahead in advanced manufacturing.

This decline culminated in a period of intense public scrutiny, including from the White House itself. President Donald Trump had publicly called for the resignation of Intel’s CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, citing alleged conflicts of interest related to China, creating a politically charged environment.

Against this backdrop, the CHIPS Act was meant to be a lifeline — a bipartisan effort to reshore critical semiconductor manufacturing. However, the Trump Administration’s decision to pivot from straightforward grants to an equity stake changed the game entirely.

For Intel’s leadership, refusing the deal was likely not a viable option. Turning down the government’s offer would have meant forfeiting billions in essential funding and risking the appearance of being uncooperative with a national security imperative. It would have been corporate suicide.

The administration leveraged Intel’s precarious position and the national security narrative to secure a deal that transforms a subsidy program into a national investment vehicle.

Global Lessons From Sovereign Funds

The concept of a government owning stakes in key industries is not new. Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are common globally, with varying degrees of success. The paragons are funds like the Norway Government Pension Fund Global, which has expertly managed the country’s oil wealth to become the world’s largest SWF, and Singapore’s Temasek Holdings, known for its savvy, long-term investments in global companies.

These successful funds are characterized by professional management, a clear mandate to maximize long-term returns, and a strong firewall insulating them from short-term political interference.

However, the history of government intervention is also littered with failures. State-owned enterprises in many countries have been plagued by inefficiency, corruption, and political cronyism, becoming a drain on public resources rather than a source of national wealth.

Even in the U.S., direct government investments have a checkered past. The 2008 bailout of General Motors, for example, saw the Treasury take a significant equity stake to save the automaker, but ultimately resulted in an estimated $10 billion loss for taxpayers upon the sale of the shares.

The risk is that political objectives — like preserving jobs in a specific district or favoring certain suppliers — can override sound business strategy, dooming the investment to fail.

Intel’s Balancing Act With a New Partner

For Intel, successfully navigating this new reality will require a delicate balancing act. The first priority must be to establish a rigid governance framework that clearly defines the government’s role as a passive, non-voting shareholder. The terms of the deal stipulate as much, but the informal pressure to align with political winds will be immense. Intel must continue to make decisions based on market dynamics, technological roadmaps, and competitive pressures, not on the four-year election cycle.

Second, transparency is paramount. Intel must over-communicate its strategy, milestones, and financial performance to the public and its new government shareholder. This will be crucial to building trust and demonstrating that the capital is being deployed effectively to achieve the shared goal of technological leadership.

Finally, Intel has to execute. The company is in the middle of a monumental turnaround plan, investing over $100 billion to build advanced fabrication plants (fabs) in Arizona, Ohio, and beyond. This government capital injection de-risks that colossal undertaking, but it doesn’t guarantee success. Intel must hit its process technology goals, win back major customers from competitors, and make its foundry services a viable alternative to TSMC.

If the turnaround succeeds, the government’s 10% stake will look like a stroke of genius. If it falters, it will become a symbol of a failed industrial policy.

The Strategic Upside for America Inc.

Despite the risks, the strategic rationale for this move is compelling. Semiconductors are the bedrock of the modern economy and national security, powering everything from iPhones and AI data centers to F-35 fighter jets. For decades, the U.S. has watched its leadership in manufacturing this critical technology erode, creating a dangerous dependency on East Asia, particularly Taiwan.

This investment is a direct, muscular intervention to reverse that trend. By taking a stake in Intel, the government isn’t just a funder; it’s a committed partner. The government’s direct partnership with Intel sends a powerful signal to the global market that the U.S. is serious about rebuilding its industrial commons.

It also includes a clever provision: a warrant allowing the government to acquire another 5% stake if Intel’s ownership of its foundry business falls below 51%. This clause acts as a poison pill to prevent a future sale of the manufacturing assets, ensuring that the taxpayer-funded fabs remain under American control.

If successful, this model could be replicated, creating a portfolio of strategic national assets designed to secure America’s supply chains and technological edge for generations.

Wrapping Up

The U.S. government’s investment in Intel is a watershed moment for American industrial policy. It represents a departure from the laissez-faire orthodoxy of the past several decades and a bold, if risky, bet on the nation’s ability to direct its economic destiny.

Intel was cornered into this deal, but it also provides the company with a historic opportunity to complete its turnaround and reclaim its position at the apex of the tech world. The success or failure of this venture will hinge on execution, discipline, and the ability of both parties to keep politics from poisoning the well of innovation.

For the United States, it’s more than just an investment; it’s a declaration that when it comes to the foundational technologies of the 21st century, America is determined to be the master of its own house.

Welcome to “The Pipeline” — a new weekly column from HubSpot, featuring actionable advice and insight from real sales leaders.

Top salespeople are successful because they sweat the details. They probe for pain, help their prospects, and run effective sales calls. They listen closely to what their prospects say, effectively determine the right solution, and ask for help when they need it.

Top reps are articulate, assertive, and direct. And most importantly, they don’t use “weasel words” — words or phrases that subliminally undermine their credibility.

https://app.theaffilo.com/short/20Sl4man23DY

As a salesperson, you might let one of those phrases slip from time to time to seem flashy or important, but prospects can see right through them — undermining the trust you're developing and impacting your ability to close. Every word you say to a prospect is an opportunity to bolster or weaken your credibility, so top salespeople choose their words carefully.

page. You should be able to explain these concepts in a simple way, so do it! Using jargon might make you feel smart, but it’s just going to confuse your prospect.There’s too much chance in sales to risk screwing up a deal because you chose your words sloppily. Always aim to be open, honest, and forthright — and avoid words and phrases that will endanger your prospect relationships and your reputation.6. “We don't normally do this, but … ”You might think that you‘re impressing your prospect with this one. On the surface, it kind of seems like a little "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" that makes them feel special — like you’re telling them, “I like you more than our other prospects.”But prospects can see through this trick. They immediately wonder, “How many people have they said this to?” It‘s a particularly weaselly "weasel word." They’re not going to feel cool because you‘re claiming they’re getting special treatment — they're going to roll their eyes.Leave “Weasel Words” at the door.The phrases listed here are all underscored by some common themes — namely, they're all cheap and they all reflect a lack of faith in your sales acumen and value proposition.They reflect a certain insecurity — showing that you have to resort to tricks and gimmicks when trying to develop the trust you need to successfully navigate a sales engagement. And in doing so, you wind up undermining your authority and coming off as sleazy or incompetent.Avoid these phrases, and instead, project sincere confidence in your ability and offering. Speak directly, empathetically, and assertively — and establish yourself as the valuable, consultative resource prospects will ultimately want to buy from.

When it comes to finding the right AED for your business, it’s important to learn everything you can about the device you’re interested in before making your purchase. Different manufacturers design their AEDs with distinct types of rescuers in mind, resulting in a variety of characteristics and features among these life-saving devices.

https://app.theaffilo.com/short/20Sl4man23DY

Occasionally, when a manufacturer designs a specific model, they create multiple options to tailor the devices even more to the needs of the rescuers. Today, we’re going to be discussing the HeartSine samaritan AED models and how they differ from each other to help you through your purchasing journey when buying a HeartSine samaritan AED.

Automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are life-saving devices that can significantly increase the chances of survival during a sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) emergency. While AEDs’ importance in a public space is evident, one common concern for many individuals, organizations, and businesses considering purchasing an AED is the initial cost and maintenance costs of the AED machine itself. 

click here to order AED products on Heartsmart  https://litl.si/wLbpW

The Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen is one of the most popular SUV's in the world. Despite being nearly 50 years old, its performance, on or off-road capability, and durability have earned it a following since the SUV was released. Easily recognizable by its aggressive profile and boxy shape, this SUV is at home in both a city carpark or desolate desert fields. 

Now in its fifth generation, the G-Wagen has seen success with each generation by improving its attributes. A product of Mercedes-Benz, the G-Wagen was initially conceived as a military off-roader. Its original name, G-Wagen — a shortened version of Geländewagen — was a German word that meant "cross-country" or "all-terrain vehicle."

Having fulfilled its original purpose in continuous use by the militaries of over 40 countries, the G-Wagen has since transformed itself to meet the contemporary demands of the market by providing specialized civilian versions. These road-worthy G-Wagens can be configured for a variety of purposes, including a six-wheeled version, alongside the mainstream G550 and G63 models.

The G-Wagen was created to conquer all types of terrain

The origins of the G-Wagen name can be traced back to the merger between the companies of Karl Benz and Dr. Gottlieb Daimler in 1926, resulting in Daimler-Benz. This new company soon produced the 170 series of automobiles, and later followed this up with the G1 — a stronger and more rugged platform that could be considered an ancestor of the modern SUV. This new model could be used in off-road or rough terrain, and because of its prototype status, it was given the "G" designation to signify its purpose: Geländewagen, an automobile that can go cross-country, on any terrain.

Throughout the 1930s to the 1940s, additional development was made on the G1, which later spawned several iterations; each having the letter "G" in its model designation — with the last being the G5, which production ended in 1941. After three decades, there was a renewed commercial interest in a vehicle that would be tough enough for military use, but could be offered to consumers. By 1973, the company Steyr-Daimler-Puch from Austria responded by designing a smaller, faster, and more nimble machine that was first called the H2. Ultimately, the old designation to convey a sturdy and powerful machine was again used, thus reviving the Geländewagen model name.

From those early versions made by Steyr-Daimler-Puch, to the production model W460 that rolled out of its Graz, Austria factory in 1979, the first generation G-Wagen was in production for 11 years until 1991. The W461 then replaced that first-gen G-Wagen in 1992. The second-generation lasted until 2022, had the most number of upgrades, and became the starting point of the modern G-Wagen as we know it today

At nearly $150,000 for the base model, the G-Wagen is a coveted model despite its expensive price tag, and the demand for the car remains strong. Nearly 11,000 units that were sold in the United States alone during the year 2024. Notwithstanding its age, even older generation G-Wagens have remained sought-after vehicles, and the used car market values have held up well.

Is Freshsales Right for Me?