Technologies

Stop Taking So Long to Reply to Texts. You’re Sabotaging Your Friendships

Commentary: You might think it’s no big deal to regularly leave your friends on Read. But it can irreparably strain your relationships.

Depending on who you ask, texting is either an easy way to keep in touch or an overbearing item on an ever-growing to-do list. What’s convenient for one person may be a burden to another, which can cause strains on some relationships.

So, how long can someone go without texting you back before they end up on the friendship chopping block? Not very long, if you ask me.

It might come across as harsh, but I believe healthy relationships are sustained by timely communication, instead of consistently leaving someone on Read or Delivered for a week. It becomes practically impossible to coordinate hangouts or share life updates if someone can’t bother to respond to your messages within a reasonable window, or otherwise call you if that’s how they prefer to chat.

Friends who take days to reply — if they ever do — come off as indifferent and uninterested, especially when they don’t arrange alternative ways to catch up. You might start to wonder how much they actually value your time and effort, and why they don’t prioritize communicating with you. Repeated offenses can make it tempting to throw in the towel and invest your energy elsewhere.

How long can you go without texting someone back?

I’ll first acknowledge my personal bias here: I have always enjoyed texting. It’s been my preferred method of communication since I got my first phone at 13 years old and discovered the magic of talking to my friends anytime, anywhere.

It’s no coincidence that some of my closest friends tend to be people with whom I regularly text. There’s a sense of familiarity that comes from sharing your day-to-day experiences and thoughts. It’s also a fun way to engage in banter and share relatable memes and videos.

And before I upset anyone — if I haven’t already — I’ll again acknowledge that for some people, texting isn’t enjoyable. But I still think people have a responsibility to communicate clearly and frequently with loved ones if they hope to maintain those relationships, whether it’s a text, phone call or in-person meetup.

So, what’s an acceptable window of time for someone to text you back?

Despite how unaccommodating I may come off in that frank introduction, I do like to give people chances. If someone takes days to reply to me the first time, or simply never gets back to me, I let it go. But if it happens again, that’s a strike. I believe you should always text someone back within a 24-hour period — notwithstanding special circumstances like travel or illness, etc.

Repeatedly taking several days to reply is not only inconsiderate, it also just kills the vibe. Why do I care if you laughed at a meme I sent you five days ago? At that point, I won’t even remember what I reached out to you about. And if I’m asking you about going to an event and you only respond after it’s over, that unlocks a whole other level of annoyance.

I believe the time and effort you invest in friendships includes replying to texts within a reasonable period (as long as your friend isn’t bombarding your inbox, of course). So if someone continuously takes days to reply, I take it as my sign to stop trying, and to put that energy into the friends who won’t leave me waiting.

A more personal way to stay in touch

As a teenager, my friends and I would text each other around the clock, sending a steady stream of messages and photos about anything and everything, most of it totally inconsequential. (Being young and unemployed made this all the easier.)

But as we got older and busier, and as social media began eating up our free time, text messages were largely supplanted by posting and consuming content on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Our digital activity became less personal, more performative and less conducive to maintaining relationships. Social media gives the false impression of keeping up with someone without actually talking to them, so relationships tend to fracture.

Most people have witnessed the awkwardness of someone not replying to your text for days, but ceaselessly posting on social media. Time and energy goes into both activities, and choosing to bypass personal interactions for more public-facing ones can prevent you from feeling a genuine connection to the people who care to reach out to you. Taking 30 seconds to reply to a text could be the difference between making and breaking a meaningful relationship.

While phone calls and in-person meetups are undoubtedly the best ways to have an in-depth conversation with someone, finding a time that works for both parties can be a challenge, given how increasingly hectic our lives have become. Texting can be a comparatively low-lift way to build a true sense of camaraderie and connection.

So, the next time you think it’s not a big deal to leave someone on Read or Delivered, maybe reconsider what your actions (or lack thereof) may convey.

Technologies

Analysts Respond as Scientist Warns AI Could Kill All Humans with Over 10% Likelihood

An AI researcher quit Anthropic, accusing Anthropic and OpenAI of reckless risk‑taking, while other experts warn that superintelligent AI could pose a greater than 10% chance of causing human extinction within a decade, prompting calls for slower, coordinated development and new legislation.

A leading AI researcher resigned from Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the firm and its main competitor, OpenAI, of reckless conduct, sparking widespread worry on social platforms about the swift advancement of the technology.

Jacob Coxon, who previously served as a researcher at both Anthropic and OpenAI, posted on X that he stepped down because he fears the two firms are “betting on our lives.” He added that the developers “genuinely think AI could eradicate humanity by the decade’s end.”

“Don’t underestimate this technology,” the researcher warned. “Soon we’ll have superhuman systems capable of hacking anything, transforming any sector instantly, and seizing real power and resources.”

Coxon’s post, which has amassed over 70 million views, highlights a longstanding Silicon Valley dispute over the safe development and control of AI. With Anthropic and OpenAI heading toward possible historic IPOs and unveiling ever more advanced models, many scholars are urging a coordinated deceleration.

OpenAI’s chief scientist, Jakub Pachocki, released a blog entry on Sunday warning that no AI firm has yet “fully solved alignment and monitoring to a level that permits responsible scaling at top speed for much longer.” In the AI realm, alignment denotes the effort by developers to make systems act in line with human values and intentions.

“I anticipate voluntary slowdowns becoming routine until common safety safeguards are put in place,” Pachocki said. “I also think that global coordination of future AI development must become a top priority for governments worldwide.”

Coxon’s Tuesday post also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self‑improvement—an AI capable of creating and improving its own successors without human input. Though not yet achievable, companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI caution that it could enable humans to lose control of such systems.

“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon asserted. “They are racing directly toward self‑improving superintelligence.”

Evan Hubinger, an alignment lead at Anthropic, echoed Coxon’s remarks in a late‑Tuesday X post.

“Jacob is right—we truly believe AI could eradicate humanity! I estimate there’s a greater than 10% chance within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “Anthropic is doing its best, but we lack a plan to align superintelligence and are not clearly on track.”

Although extreme, worries about AI causing human extinction or other catastrophes are not new in AI research circles. In 2023, for example, leading AI researchers and executives—including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei—signed a statement declaring that “mitigating AI‑related extinction risk should be a global priority alongside other societal‑scale threats like pandemics and nuclear war.”

Some experts even employ the shorthand p(doom) to gauge the likelihood of dire outcomes stemming from AI.

Anthropic’s Hubinger was among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed the July “Pacing the Frontier” open letter. The letter called on the U.S. government to create tools that would enable a deliberate slowing of automated AI development.

Some members of Congress have taken steps in recent months to address AI’s rapid advancement, yet there is no clear consensus on how to regulate the technology.

In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte (R‑Calif.) and Rep. Lori Trahan (D‑Mass.) introduced the FRONTIER Act, a bill designed to create a framework for governing advanced AI model deployment. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I‑Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D‑Texas) introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government sets safety rules. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.

“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are escaping their labs, and companies are racing ahead,” Trahan wrote on X Wednesday. “It’s long past time for Congress to step off the sidelines and act.”

Lawmakers are also contending with rising public backlash toward AI data centers—large facilities that house the hardware for training and running AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have performed a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”

“They’ll need to accept some blame and persuade the American public that the benefits won’t accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”

Technologies

Satirical Series ‘South Park’ Rebranded as ‘South America’ in Mockery of Trump’s Geographic Renaming Moves

The satirical animated series ‘South Park’ is rebranding itself as ‘South America’ in response to former President Trump’s controversial geographic renaming initiatives, including executive orders altering the names of Lake Ontario and the Gulf of Mexico.

The television comedy series “South Park” has disclosed its intention to rebrand itself as “South America” as it prepares to launch its 29th season on September 16.

The show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, stated, “Inspired by the courage and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are renaming South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We also wish to acknowledge our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”

Parker and Stone’s remarks follow U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario as Lake America amid a trade dispute with Canada. Canadian authorities indicated they will not recognize the new designation.

Subsequently, Apple and Google updated the name for Lake Ontario on their mapping platforms, with American users viewing “Lake America” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.”

This development occurred a day after Trump shared AI-generated posts on Truth Social proposing that New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.”

In the previous year, the president employed an executive order to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, prompting international criticism.

“South Park” received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode, which debuted last year and satirizes Trump’s presidency.

The “Skydance Capitulation” remark follows the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which the Federal Communications Commission approved last year after Paramount resolved a lawsuit filed by Trump for $16 million.

Trump claimed that an interview aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was edited in a misleading manner.

Paramount’s CBS News division announced in July 2025 that it was discontinuing comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” attributing the decision to financial constraints, shortly after Colbert accused Paramount of giving Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the program was broadcast in May.

Paramount and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Technologies

Trump says U.S. may keep Iranian oil ‘like Venezuela’ as Gulf-Iran Hormuz talks stall

Trump said revenue from the Venezuela arrangement has “paid for the war many times.”

President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, likening the scenario to the deal Washington struck with Venezuela earlier this year.

“We’ll ultimately get out (of the war), unless we decide to stay and keep the oil like Venezuela,” Trump said of the Iran conflict Sunday at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland. He added that U.S. revenue from the Venezuela arrangement, which granted Washington access to roughly a fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, has “paid for the war many times.”

Under the agreement reached in August, Venezuela ceded majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves — more than double America’s own reserves — in exchange for $209 billion to Venezuela’s state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also bring close to $100 billion in private investment to reinvigorate its economy.

On Sunday, Trump said he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, possibly after the November midterm elections, and insisted that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once it does.

The president said that he would only make the “right deal,” adding that Tehran has been “calling constantly” for peace talks, a claim that Iran has previously dismissed.

Trump’s comments came as diplomacy over the Strait of Hormuz stalled.

A meeting in Oman between Gulf countries and Iran to discuss possible agreements on the Strait of Hormuz, the vital waterway for global oil and gas flows, has been postponed, Omani foreign minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday, citing the need for “consensus.”

Officials from Iran and Gulf nations had been expected to meet on Monday and sign an agreement establishing an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, though no direct talks between the U.S. and Iran were ongoing.

The Strait of Hormuz has been subjected to an Iranian and later U.S. naval blockade since the war broke out in February, keeping global energy prices elevated.

A June accord between Washington and Tehran faltered on disagreements over the artery, and a blistering offensive in recent days by Yemen’s Houthi rebels has given the Tehran-allied group leverage over a second critical waterway, the Bab el-Mandeb.

Ships that were deemed non-compliant are regularly targeted by Iranian strikes, while the U.S. periodically bombs the Iranian coastline to contest the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices soared past $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and took a leg higher on Monday after Saudi Arabia closed a key East-West energy pipeline following damage from Iraqi drones.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were up 2.3% to $102.39 per barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded 2.4% higher to $107.11 a barrel.