A judge rejects Fox News’s request to dismiss Dominion’s defamation suit.

Dominion, an election technology company, has accused the network of defaming it by spreading false claims that it was involved in rigging vote counts in the 2020 election.,

ImageOutside the studios of Fox News Media in New York. The network has been accused of advancing lies that devastated the reputation and business of Dominion Voting Systems.
Outside the studios of Fox News Media in New York. The network has been accused of advancing lies that devastated the reputation and business of Dominion Voting Systems.Credit…Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press

A judge on Thursday rejected an attempt by the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Media to dismiss a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s coverage of the company’s role in the 2020 presidential election.

In the ruling, Judge Eric M. Davis of the Superior Court of Delaware, where Fox is incorporated, wrote that he had denied Fox News Media’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit because it was “reasonably conceivable that Dominion has a claim for defamation.”

Dominion, an election technology company, sued Fox News Media in March, accusing it of advancing lies that devastated its reputation and business. More than two dozen states, including several carried by former President Donald J. Trump, made use of Dominion, a Denver company founded in 2002, in last year’s election.

Along with another vote tabulating company, Smartmatic, Dominion was at the center of a baseless pro-Trump conspiracy theory about rigged voting machines that gave the election to President Biden. The false claims were promoted by the president and his advisers, including Rudolph Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who appeared on Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.

In May, Fox filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Dominion’s lawsuit threatened the news media’s First Amendment right to chronicle and assess newsworthy claims.

In his ruling, Judge Davis disputed the arguments put forth by Fox, including that its employees were reporting in a neutral manner on statements made by advisers of the then-president and that claims made on its channels were opinion, and thus constituted protected speech.

The judge wrote that he was not persuaded by Fox’s “neutral reportage” and “opinion” arguments. He added that the company either “knew its statements about Dominion’s role in election fraud were false” or that it “had a high degree of awareness that the statements were false.”

Judge Davis also noted that Dominion had objected in writing to Fox’s coverage, seemingly to no avail. The allegations made by Dominion in its complaint, he wrote, “support the reasonable inference that Fox intended to keep Dominion’s side of the story out of the narrative.”

A Dominion spokeswoman said in a statement: “We are pleased to see this process moving forward to hold Fox accountable.”

In a statement on Thursday, a Fox spokeswoman said, “We remain committed to defending against this baseless lawsuit and its all-out assault on the First Amendment.”

The 52-page ruling included examples of statements made on shows hosted by Mario Bartiromo, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, whose Fox Business Network program was canceled in February.

The judge wrote that those hosts had provided platforms to people who were spreading the false narrative of election fraud involving Dominion and that the hosts’ own statements sometimes lent weight to the baseless claims. Also figuring in the court’s decision to allow the case to go forward was the fact that other Fox journalists had publicly stated the claims of widespread vote fraud were false.

“The nearby presence of dissenting colleagues thus further suggests Fox, through personnel like Mr. Dobbs, was knowing or reckless in reporting the claims,” Judge Davis wrote.

Barring a successful appeal of the ruling, Dominion now has the power to compel Fox to produce internal documents related to the issues raised in the suit and to have its employees testify in deposition.

Don Herzog, who teaches First Amendment and defamation law at the University of Michigan, said in an interview that Fox faced a decision: It could settle, which might be seen as an admission of wrongdoing, or it could go through the discovery process, which would make its internal communications public.

Timothy Zick, a professor at William & Mary Law School who specializes in First Amendment law, said that Fox would be more incentivized to settle the suit. “The danger for them is that a lot of embarrassing email correspondence and other documents will come out, if they don’t settle the case,” he said. Mr. Zick added that Dominion might not be willing to settle.

The prospect of the publication of Fox’s internal communications concerning its coverage of the 2020 election follows the recent disclosure of text messages sent by its hosts to Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s final White House chief of staff, during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. On their shows this week, the hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham vociferously defended the messages, which made vivid the close relationship between the network and Mr. Trump’s administration. Mr. Hannity and Ms. Ingraham said that nothing in their text messages differed from their public statements.

Fox faces another high-stakes legal battle over its election coverage because of a defamation lawsuit filed in February by Smartmatic.

The day after Smartmatic filed its suit, Fox Business Network abruptly canceled “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” Mr. Dobbs, a loyal supporter of Mr. Trump, was the host of the channel’s most-watched show.

In its suit, Smartmatic cited a false claim made by Ms. Powell on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that Hugo Ch?vez, the former president of Venezuela, had a hand in the creation of Smartmatic technology, designing it so that the votes it processed could be changed undetected. (Mr. Ch?vez, who died in 2013, did not have anything to do with Smartmatic.) Mr. Dobbs had also referred to the supposed vote conspiracy as “cyber Pearl Harbor,” borrowing a phrase that had been used by Ms. Powell.

Elizabeth Holmes leaving court on Thursday. Ms. Holmes is on trial for fleecing investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars and misleading patients and doctors.Credit…Nic Coury/Associated Press

Closing arguments in the fraud trial of Elizabeth Holmes were expected to finish on Friday, inching the monthslong saga closer to a verdict.

Ms. Holmes, who founded the blood testing start-up Theranos, is on trial for fleecing investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars and misleading patients and doctors. Theranos rose to prominence, hitting a $9 billion valuation, before collapsing in 2018 after it was revealed that the company’s blood tests did not work as Ms. Holmes had claimed.

After closing arguments are completed and jury instructions are given, jurors — eight men and four women — will begin deliberating whether Ms. Holmes committed 11 counts of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Ms. Holmes has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, she faces up to 20 years in jail, which could send shock waves through the freewheeling world of Silicon Valley start-ups.

On Thursday, prosecutors summarized more than three months of testimony in their closing arguments while rebutting some points made by Ms. Holmes’s lawyers. The government did not disagree with Ms. Holmes’s point that business failure, on its own, was not a crime, said Jeffrey Schenk, an assistant U.S. attorney and a lead prosecutor on the case. But when Theranos was running out of money in 2009 and 2010, “she chose fraud over business failure,” he said.

Mr. Schenk also addressed Ms. Holmes’s accusations of abuse against her former business partner and boyfriend, Ramesh Balwani, known as Sunny. Ms. Holmes’s emotional testimony about the abusive and domineering nature of their relationship was a separate issue from the fraud case, Ms. Schenk said.

“The case is about false statements made to investors and false statements made to patients,” he said. “You do not need to question whether that abuse happened.”

Kevin Downey, a lawyer for Ms. Holmes, also delivered the first two hours of her final defense by reiterating a key point her camp has repeatedly made: The situation is far more complicated than prosecutors have made it out to be.

Mr. Downey gave examples of instances where, he argued, the government’s evidence did not present the full story. Multiple slides referred to “missing witnesses” who were not called by the government and others parsed the intricacies of Ms. Holmes’s understanding of the word “accuracy.”

“The government is showing an event that looks bad, but at the end of the day, when all the evidence flows together, it isn’t so bad,” Mr. Downey said.

While injecting a level of confusion into the government’s narrative, Mr. Downey also stressed that jurors must be certain to convict. He showed an image of a staircase with eight steps leading up to “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which jurors must reach to deliver a guilty verdict. The top step, which represented guilt, was not labeled.

The proceedings on Friday were expected to begin with further statements from Mr. Downey, followed by detailed jury instructions delivered by Judge Edward Davila of the Northern District of California.

Stocks on Wall Street dropped on Friday, with the S&P 500 set to end the week with a loss, in another day of turbulent trading that reflected uncertainty about the path for interest rates and the coronavirus.

Trading has been volatile all week as investors absorbed a shift in policy from the Federal Reserve and its counterparts in Europe. Major indexes soared on Wednesday, then dropped on Thursday, after the Fed said it would pull back faster on the monetary policy stimulus that has helped support the economy since the start of the pandemic.

The Fed’s decision to end its bond-buying program by March could lead to higher interest rates in 2022.

On Friday, John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, suggested that he did not expect the Fed would need to move more quickly to end its bond-buying program than it had already signaled. Mr. Williams also said any decision to raise interest rates would depend on progress in the economy.

After falling more than 1 percent in the morning, the S&P 500 was down around 0.7 percent in early afternoon trading. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite was unchanged.

For the week, the S&P 500 is poised to end with a decline of more than 1.7 percent. The Nasdaq composite is on track to end the week down close to 3 percent.

Some of the selling this week could reflect the decision among investors to lock in their profits for the year, ahead of the Christmas and New Year holiday stretch, said Anu Gaggar, global investment strategist for Commonwealth Financial Network.

“With the Fed raising rates, the Omicron variant spreading faster and the holidays coming up, people don’t want to keep that exposure or risk open on their box when their off for the holidays,” said Ms. Gaggar said. “They would rather be more on the defensive side.”

The indication that rates are going to rise is curbing investor appetite for risky investments, like technology stocks, which swung between gains and losses on Friday. Microsoft and Alphabet were down more than 1 percent in midday trading, while Apple was down 0.9 percent. All four are down for the week.

But the prospects of higher interest rates is good news for banks because they mean increased profits from loans. After gaining earlier in the week, shares of banks were lower Friday. Bank of America was down 2.6 percent and JPMorgan Chase falling 2.5 percent.

In Europe, the Bank of England and the European Central Bank also took steps toward combating inflation during their policy meetings on Thursday. Britain’s central bank decided to increase its main interest rate for the first time, while the eurozone’s central bank said it would stop purchases under a bond-buying program in March.

European stock indexes dropped on Friday, with the Stoxx Europe 600 closing 0.6 percent lower.

All three central banks have made the approach to pull back on their economic support even as uncertainties over the Omicron variant of the coronavirus continue to linger. The emergence of the new form of the virus has also pushed stocks lower this week as the United States faces a 40 percent surge in cases from two weeks ago.

Last week, preliminary research signaled that the Omicron variant was less severe than other forms of the virus, driving shares higher. However, more recent studies suggest Omicron is highly transmissible and less susceptible to vaccines than other variants.

Oil prices also fell on Friday, with West Texas Intermediate, the U.S. crude benchmark, down 2 percent to $70.93 a barrel. Energy stocks fell, with Diamondback Energy down 2.2 percent and Enphase Energy down nearly 1 percent.

John C. Williams, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Fed said Wednesday that would pare buying back even faster, so that it wraps up by mid-March. Credit…Jeenah Moon for The New York Times

A top Federal Reserve official on Friday suggested he did not expect that the central bank would need to move more quickly to end its bond-buying program than it had already signaled.

“We are ending the program pretty soon,” John C. Williams, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, said during a CNBC interview. He added that he did not see “any real benefit to trying to speed it up further — it’s really about getting our monetary policy stance in a good position.”

The Fed had been buying $120 billion in bonds each month for much of the pandemic, but it announced in early November that it would begin to slow those purchases down in a bid to stop pouring additional fuel into the economy. On Wednesday, it said it would pare the buying back even faster, so that it wraps up by mid-March. That will put Fed officials into position to raise interest rates, their more powerful and traditional tool, without worrying that their two policies are working at odds to one another.

Mr. Williams, who is one of the most central decision makers at the Fed, made his comment at a moment when some economists are asking why the central bank is still buying bonds at all, with inflation so high. But he said the goal with the acceleration was to create “optionality” — the ability to respond to inflation with higher rates if needed — without moving so abruptly that it created disruption in markets.

Fed officials also revised their expected path for interest rates at their meeting this week. Rates are set to near-zero, but the fresh projections showed three increases in 2022 and suggested that the federal funds rate could rise to 2.1 percent by the end of 2024. That would make borrowing for mortgages, care loans and business expansions more expensive, slowing down the economy.

Mr. Williams signaled that the timing and pace of rate increases — which the Fed uses to make sure that growth does not overheat, keeping inflation elevated and potentially causing it to rocket out of control — would hinge on progress in the economy.

“It’s going to depend on the data,” he said, later adding, “I’m pretty optimistic, we are seeing strong improvement in the labor market.”

He said he did not believe that the Fed would be forced to cause a recession to bring inflation down, as has historically been the case — something Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury Secretary and current Harvard economist, pointed out in a new column.

Inflation is now at its highest level since 1982, but the drivers behind the burst in prices have been unusual and related to pandemic shutdowns and the subsequent reopening, Mr. Williams said. This makes the dynamics different.

“This is a unique set of circumstances,” he said, pointing to the strange fallout from the pandemic in supply chains that has force durable goods prices higher. He said that historical episodes are “probably not the best guide.”

Didi trading on the New York Stock Exchange in June. The company said it would delist from the exchange, and now plans a listing in Hong Kong instead.Credit…Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

An American accounting board has started what could prove to be a three-year clock for the delisting of many Chinese companies traded on American stock exchanges, in a move involving audit standards that are at the center of a squabble between Beijing and Washington.

The move comes as some Chinese companies have already begun seeking listings on stock markets in mainland China or Hong Kong instead of New York in response to demands from Beijing for greater control of potentially sensitive data. Didi Chuxing, the Chinese ride-hailing giant, said two weeks ago that it would delist from the New York Stock Exchange, and now plans a listing in Hong Kong instead.

But Chinese regulators have wanted to preserve American stock listings as an option for Chinese companies that are not involved in potentially sensitive political or national security issues. The latest dispute over accounting could make that more difficult.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board said late Thursday that it had been unable to fully inspect the audit papers and other documents of accounting firms in mainland China and Hong Kong. The Securities and Exchange Commission has the power to delist companies that lack fully approved overseas audits for three years.

The board said that in the 13 months through the end of September, 15 accounting firms registered with the board and based in mainland China or Hong Kong had signed the audit reports for 191 publicly traded companies with a combined global market capitalization of $1.9 trillion.

The United States and China have been arguing about the audit issue for more than a decade. The China Securities Regulatory Commission has contended over the last several years, most recently in a statement on Dec. 5, that it is prepared to cooperate with the United States and reach a series of agreements that protect investors while also shielding China’s security and other interests.

The American accounting board, a nonprofit corporation that works closely with the S.E.C., disputes that China has shown flexibility. “They persistently have taken positions that prevent the finalization of, or their full performance under, such agreements,” the board said.

The Chinese commission had no immediate reaction on Friday. Chinese state-owned media groups were silent on the board’s decision.

Li You contributed research.

JPMorgan is fined after staff used personal chats for company business.Credit…Johannes Eisele/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

JPMorgan Chase was fined $200 million by regulators on Friday for failing to track work-related communication on employees’ personal cellphones and email.

Staff members in the bank’s securities division avoided oversight by discussing company business on their personal devices via text messages, the messaging service WhatsApp and personal email accounts, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission, which find the bank $125 million. The bank’s “widespread and longstanding failures” spanned from January 2018 to November 2020, the S.E.C. said.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also fined the bank $75 million in a separate enforcement order for similar misconduct dating back to 2015.

JPMorgan admitted that its conduct violated federal securities and commodity-trading laws, which are aimed at protecting investors and maintaining fair markets. It also agreed to hire a compliance consultant to review its policies and procedures for retaining electronic communications.

Record-keeping is “an essential part of market integrity and a foundational component of the S.E.C.’s ability to be an effective cop on the beat,” Gary Gensler, the S.E.C. chairman, said in the statement. “As technology changes, it’s even more important that registrants ensure that their communications are appropriately recorded and are not conducted outside of official channels.”

A spokesman for the bank declined to comment.

The magnitude of the fines could serve as a warning to Wall Street, where bankers have increasingly relied on text messages and chats, preferring them to company email.

Serious penalties for failing to maintain proper records have generally been rare: The last major S.E.C. fine for such conduct was just $15 million against Morgan Stanley in 2006, for failing to produce emails during investigations on initial public offerings and research produced by analysts.

The S.E.C. has not yet closed its investigation into JPMorgan, which found that more than 100 people, including senior managers, used personal communications to send tens of thousands of messages that were not properly retained in the bank’s systems, according to an S.E.C. official briefed on the matter who declined to be identified discussing a still-open inquiry. The messages covered a wide range of topics, from investment strategy to client meetings, and involved various teams, including parts of the investment bank, the person said.

The regulator only learned about the unapproved communications through third parties, including in one instance in which it was investigating JPMorgan’s role as an underwriter, the S.E.C. said in enforcement order. Employees including desk heads, managing directors and other senior executives sent more than 21,000 texts and emails relating to work for an investment-banking client from January 2018 to November 2019. The bank did not keep records of those communications, according to the order.

The JPMorgan inquiry has also prompted investigations into other financial firms’ records, the regulator said on Friday. It encouraged companies to come forward to report any similar issues. That is because firms that voluntarily report lapses in compliance to the authorities typically receive less severe punishments.

Lawmakers are still active buyers and sellers of equities, and they are dabbling in options and cryptocurrencies.Credit…Shawn Thew/EPA, via Shutterstock

Lawmakers traded fewer company stocks this year compared with last, perhaps because of the increased scrutiny that the questionable practice brings.

But they are still active buyers and sellers, courting controversy over potential conflicts of interest between their private financial dealings and public influence over rules and regulation.

They are also dabbling more than ever in options and cryptocurrencies, based on estimates provided in official disclosures, compiled by researchers at Capitol Trades for the DealBook newsletter.

Politicians and their immediate families bought $267 million and sold $364 million worth of assets this year, both down on levels in 2020 despite rising markets. About 60 percent of these trades were in company stocks, with the rest split among funds, bonds and other assets. Republicans bought $100 million worth of stocks this year, versus $75 million for Democrats, according to the average of ranges that lawmakers provide in filings.

Democrats were really into tech stocks, while Republicans were more about energy companies (and crypto).

Union members and supporters at a rally outside Kellogg’s headquarters in Battle Creek, Mich., in October.Credit…Alyssa Keown/Battle Creek Enquirer, via Associated Press

Kellogg said on Thursday that it had reached a second tentative agreement with a union representing about 1,400 workers at four U.S. cereal plants who have been on strike since early October.

The accord, which would cover five years, was announced about a week and a half after workers voted down an earlier agreement, prompting the company to announce that it would move ahead with hiring permanent replacements for the workers on strike.

Last week, President Biden weighed in on the standoff, saying in a statement that he was “deeply troubled” by the plan for permanent replacement workers, which he called “an existential attack on the union and its members’ jobs and livelihoods.”

The strike has partly revolved around the company’s two-tier compensation system, in which workers hired after 2015 typically receive lower wages and benefits than longer-tenured workers. The company has said that its veteran workers make more than $35 an hour on average, while the newer workers make almost $22 an hour on average.

Veteran workers have expressed concern that adding lower-paid workers will ultimately drag down their wages and benefits as well.

Under the agreement that was voted down last week, the company would have immediately converted all employees with four or more years at Kellogg to veteran status, then converted an amount equivalent to 3 percent of a plant’s head count in each year of the five-year contract.

The rejected agreement would have also given veteran workers a 3 percent wage increase in the first year of the contract and cost-of-living adjustments over the course of the contract. It offered newer hires a progression from the low $20s per hour to just over $28 after their sixth year.

A company spokeswoman said by email on Thursday that the new tentative agreement did not alter the process for converting newer hires to veteran status but that it “addresses the union’s request” for cost-of-living adjustments for all employees in each year of the contract.

The spokeswoman did not say whether Kellogg had hired permanent replacement workers.

“We value all of our employees. They have enabled Kellogg to provide food to Americans for more than 115 years,” Steve Cahillane, the chief executive, said in a statement. “We are hopeful our employees will vote to ratify this contract and return to work.”

The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, which represents the workers, declined to comment on the details of the agreement but said that the union would present the proposal to members over the weekend and that votes would be counted by Tuesday.

Earlier this week, Bernie Sanders, the independent U.S. senator from Vermont, announced plans to hold a rally Friday on behalf of Kellogg workers in Battle Creek, Mich., the location of the company’s headquarters and one of the striking cereal plants. A spokesman for Mr. Sanders said the trip was still on.

Dan Ammann announcing the Cruise Origin electric driverless shuttle at an event in San Francisco last year.Credit…David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

The high-profile head of Cruise, General Motors’ autonomous-driving unit, is leaving the company, the carmaker said Thursday.

The executive, Dan Ammann, a former investment banker who is from New Zealand, gave up his job as G.M.’s president to take over Cruise at the beginning of 2019. Since then, expectations for autonomous driving have cooled as the magnitude of the technical challenge has become clear and as serious accidents have highlighted the risks.

Although G.M. did not provide an explanation for Mr. Ammann’s unexpected departure, the terseness of the company’s statement — lacking even perfunctory praise for his work — hinted at tension between him and top management.

Cruise, which G.M. bought in 2016 for $1 billion, is based in San Francisco. It is testing a fleet of more than 300 self-driving vehicles there and in Phoenix, according to its website. But a driverless ride service, which G.M. said would be available in 2019, has not materialized.

Less than nine months ago, John Krafcik stepped down as chief executive of Waymo, Alphabet’s autonomous-driving unit.

In both cases, executives “had promised road maps with different milestones and those milestones were not being met,” said Raj Rajkumar, who leads the autonomous driving program at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “Eventually that takes a toll.”

Like Mr. Ammann, Mr. Krafcik, the former head of Hyundai’s North American unit, came from a management background at a time when the challenges for autonomous driving are mostly technical, requiring chief executives with deep knowledge of the technology.

G.M. said a Cruise co-founder, Kyle Vogt, currently the president and chief technical officer, would serve as interim chief executive — a change reflected almost immediately on Cruise’s website. Wesley Bush, a member of G.M.’s board who is a former chief executive of the aerospace company Northrop Grumman, will become a member of Cruise’s board.

Cruise has shown prototypes of an electric passenger vehicle called the Origin that has no pedals or steering wheel. The vehicle is “nearly ready to roll off the assembly line,” Cruise says on its website.

At an investor presentation in October, G.M. executives said they believed that an autonomous taxi service could eventually grow into a $50 billion business.

“We expect to be able to scale this business very rapidly,” said Mr. Ammann told investors during the event.

But robo-taxis like the Origin are among the most difficult types of autonomous vehicles to deploy. “The robo-taxi market is a hard sell given the current state of autonomous technology,” said Mr. Rajkumar, who previously received research funding from G.M.

Recently Cruise and G.M. have emphasized the role that autonomous driving technology can play in making cars safer. Cruise “will play an integral role” in helping G.M. pursue markets “beyond ride-share and delivery,” the automaker said in a statement Thursday.

Mr. Ammann did not respond to an email requesting comment. A spokesman for Cruise declined to comment.

Credit…Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Airplane travel. Mailing a package. Renting a car. Waiting for a Covid test. Talking to the cable company. In the second winter of this pandemic-altered world, all of it seems harder than ever. Workers and customers alike are growing increasingly weary and impatient.

The New York Times is working on an article about customer service during the pandemic: the challenges, the bursts of rage, the confusion — and the moments of connection and humanity. What is going on? We want to hear it all.

Please share your experiences using the form below. A reporter or editor might contact you to hear more. We will not publish your name or comments without contacting you first.

Credit…George Wylesol

Employers relied on jargon more than ever during the pandemic, according to Andr? Spicer, a professor at Bayes Business School, City, University of London, because the usual tools they had for building workplace community had disappeared.

That meant inventing fresh terms as well as leaning on the classics, like disruption and road map. Then there were oldies that got an update. “I hope this finds you well” gained the addendum, “in these trying and unprecedented times.”

Emma Goldberg, The New York Times’s future of work reporter, compiled some of newest office lingo.

Al Desko Dining

Remember the dash outside to buy a prepackaged sandwich, whose contents would end up nestled in the crevices of your laptop keyboard? Or the icy gazes directed toward colleagues who dared to bring in tuna? “Nostalgia about the office seems to have popped up in the hybrid age,” Mr. Spicer said. “What was ever so good about Lunch al Desko?”

Bookcase credibility

Some have a copy of Robert Caro’s “The Power Broker” on display for video calls. Others opt for something subtler — maybe “Jude the Obscure,” which the actor Paul Rudd chose, or Thomas Piketty’s “Capital,” featured behind Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Seeing into every person’s home, no matter how well you knew them, felt intrusive,” Ms. Nancherla said. “But it was also bonding in that you’re like, ‘You’re stuck at home like me.'” Stars: They’re quarantined just like us.

Polywork, commuter’s delight, mask-issist and more: READ THE FULL ARTICLE ->

Leave a Reply