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

Kremlin Confirms Putin Transmitted Iran’s War Resolution Plan to Trump

The Kremlin says Putin relayed Iran’s proposal for ending the war to Trump, while Trump announced a Russian diesel supply deal that drew sharp criticism from Zelenskyy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin communicated Tehran’s perspective on a potential conclusion to the conflict in Iran to U.S. President Donald Trump, according to Russian state media reports on Saturday.

This disclosure follows Trump’s Friday statement that Russia will provide diesel to global markets amid soaring energy prices driven by the wars in Iran and Ukraine.

Russia’s Interfax news agency cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating that Putin conveyed the message to Trump “in agreement with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian,” per a Google translation.

Additional Russian media accounts indicate Putin spoke with Trump by phone after meeting Pezeshkian on the margins of a summit in Turkmenistan.

Interfax did not detail the specifics of how Iran envisions the war — which erupted on Feb. 28 with U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets — reaching an end.

The White House did not immediately respond to Verum’s emailed request to confirm the reported conversation between Putin and Trump.

Russia supply deal

Trump announced Friday that Russia will deliver more than 4 million tons of diesel to the global market under an arrangement he said he agreed with Putin during a phone call.

Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons immediately after, Trump posted on Truth Social. Moscow will then provide another 3 million tons of diesel contingent on the condition of Russia’s refineries, Trump added.

The Treasury Department temporarily waived sanctions on Russian diesel through April 2027 under a general license issued Friday.

Iran has intensified attacks on oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, with vessels coming under fire almost daily as Tehran attempts to choke off a rebound in crude exports.

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guard official stated Wednesday that Iran will block all “illicit routes” through Hormuz, according to the Fars News Agency, an outlet considered close to the Guard.

The surge in tanker attacks coincides with crude oil exports from the Middle East rebounding in September to prewar levels, largely because the U.S. military escorted ships through Hormuz along Oman’s coast.

An interim agreement signed in June between the U.S. and Iran to pause hostilities to allow for negotiations quickly collapsed.

‘Gifts to Putin’

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy immediately denounced Trump’s diesel deal with Putin. Ukraine’s leader warned that easing sanctions without a commitment from Russia to de-escalate the war will only prolong it.

“Gifts to Putin will not bring peace or any benefit to the civilized world,” Zelenskyy said in a social media post. “Russia will ‘repay’ the diesel with further terror and perfidy. Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

Diesel prices have surged worldwide as Ukraine has pounded Russian refineries, forcing Moscow to ban diesel exports to global markets. Iran and its Houthi allies have also attacked refineries in the Middle East, further constraining fuel supplies.

Trump faces mounting political pressure to lower fuel prices ahead of the November midterm elections. Republicans confront competitive races in conservative strongholds like Iowa, where farmers feel the pinch of high diesel prices.

Technologies

AI is Changing How Lawyers Work — and Putting the Billable Hour Under Pressure

AI is reshaping the legal industry by reducing the time needed for routine tasks, challenging the traditional billable hour model, and changing how lawyers learn and practice.

Artificial intelligence is now used by almost 90% of legal professionals in the U.K. and Ireland, and it’s putting one of the profession’s oldest conventions — the billable hour — under the microscope. That’s according to legal software company Clio’s U.K. & Ireland Legal Insights Report 2026.

It found that among firms using AI, almost 80% said they can handle more work without increasing resources, while over 70% said it cut costs by absorbing administrative work once done by support staff.

As a result, AI is challenging some of the assumptions on which the legal profession was built, forcing firms to reevaluate how their lawyers spend their time, how they charge for it and how new lawyers learn the ropes. You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 secondsNick Rowles-DaviesLexolent Some of the U.K.’s biggest firms are already putting this into practice.

A&O Shearman has worked with legal AI company Harvey to develop artificial intelligence agents for tasks, including reviewing loan agreements and analyzing regulatory filings, which it says can complete in minutes work that previously took several hours. Slaughter and May, meanwhile, has rolled out Harvey across all practice areas this year, including for regulatory research and document analysis.

Billable hour pressure The billable hour is central to the business model of many law firms, but when AI significantly reduces the time lawyers spend sifting through and drafting documents, the economics are no longer so straightforward. “You can’t charge 16 hours for something that takes 16 seconds,” Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of legal finance fund Lexolent, based in London and Dubai, told CNBC.

About one in five firms that have widely adopted AI report difficulty meeting billable-hour targets, according to Clio’s report. Globally, senior legal leaders expect the share of work charged by the hour to fall from 72% to 44% over the next two to three years, according to a Deloitte survey.

Routine work is the most exposed, Rowles-Davies said. “If you’ve got standard documents and you’re just putting in detail, then clearly that’s an automatic process.” But complex legal work still requires human judgment, he added, particularly when interpreting AI output and determining the right strategy for a client.

Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting betterJoshua LenonClio

AI and workloads

Whether AI efficiencies ultimately make lawyers’ working lives better may depend on what firms do with the time they get back. Clio’s report found that 51% of legal professionals work evenings, but only 32% want to, while 22% work weekends compared with 11% who would choose to.

Joshua Lenon, Clio’s New York-based lawyer-in-residence, believes some lawyers are already seeing the benefits. “Lawyers [are] telling us that their day is getting better,” Lenon told CNBC, as AI becomes more commonplace.

“People are really looking at these tools and saying, ‘This is making work better.’”

Technologies

Trump’s diesel agreement with Putin accused of contradicting Russia sanctions law

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

President Donald Trump’s Friday announcement that Russia will supply diesel fuel to the global market marked an apparent pivot from recent efforts to pressure Moscow to end the Ukraine war by targeting Russian energy exports.

Trump claimed the move, unveiled with less than a month left in an affordability-focused midterm election, would swiftly bring down record-high diesel prices.

But commentators and critics were quick to highlight contradictions between the new policy and prior efforts by the U.S. to clamp down on Russian oil sales.

Those efforts most recently included the enactment of the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026, empowering Trump to impose tariffs up to 100% on the top purchasers of Russian crude oil or gas, among other restrictions. Trump signed the bill into law just three weeks ago.

“Congress just passed a law giving Trump the power to impose new tariffs on major buyers of Russian oil & gas,” Scott Lincicome, vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said on X after Trump’s Friday announcement.

“Can America tariff America?” he quipped.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, accused Trump’s latest move of being “directly contrary to Congress’s intent in our bipartisan sanctions bill.”

Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, in an X post said that the relaxation of Russian diesel restrictions “pretty much proves the point that the Graham Russia Bill was not going to force the Trump Administration to increase economic pressure on Moscow.”

Some of the criticism crossed party lines.

“Through the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act, we gave the president significant authorities and leverage against China and Russia to bring Putin’s war to an end with a negotiated settlement,” Rep.

Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said in an X post. “Unfortunately, while I understand the desire to bring down diesel prices, I am concerned the lifting of sanctions on Russian oil will only fund the Kremlin’s war machine—emboldening more violence and destruction, as we have seen in recent days,” McCaul said.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s questions about the diesel agreement with Russia.

Less than a year earlier, the Trump administration slapped sanctions on multiple Russian oil companies in response to what it called “Russia’s lack of serious commitment to a peace process to end the war in Ukraine.”

Trump also had previously slammed NATO allies for continuing to buy Russian oil. In a September 2025 Truth Social post, he wrote, “the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking! It greatly weakens your negotiating position, and bargaining power, over Russia.”

Later that month, Trump again harangued world leaders for doing business with Russia.

“They’re funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one?” he said in a speech at the United Nations General Assembly. “They can’t be doing what they’re doing. They’re buying oil and gas from Russia while they’re fighting Russia.”

Trump announced the diesel deal in a Truth Social post Friday afternoon after what he described as a “highly successful discussion” with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Under the agreement, Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, then another 500,000 tons in November, followed by 1 million tons “immediately thereafter” and 3 million more depending on refinery conditions, Trump wrote.

The Treasury Department soon after said that Trump directed the Office of Foreign Assets Control to immediately issue a “temporary general license to allow the supply of Russian diesel to the global market.” OFAC specified that the sanctioned transactions will be authorized for about six months, until April 7.

Russia seemed to celebrate the move. “Russia-US cooperation on diesel and energy will benefit the world,” an X account associated with Putin’s economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev said in response to the announcement.

But Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whose military has started targeting Russian oil refineries, said in a searing statement that the U.S. easing sanctions on Moscow “plays into Russia’s hands.”

“Any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness,” Zelenskyy said. “Allowing Russia to sell petroleum products is an investment in a war that must be ended, not prolonged.”

“We count on America’s fair support for our defense of life, for our defense of people in Ukraine – and on the United States having a correspondingly strong conversation with Russia,” he said.

“A strong one, not a weak one,” he added.

Trump thanked Putin later Friday afternoon for enabling “massive amounts of oil” to come to the U.S.

“We need oil for the world, and this is diesel, which is what we need, so we’re very happy to get it,” Trump told reporters before heading to Syracuse, New York.

The Trump administration has previously eased some Russian energy sanctions temporarily, though more narrowly than Friday’s announcement.

Earlier this year, in an attempt to stabilize markets after the start of the Iran war, the Trump administration issued limited, 30-day waivers allowing countries to buy sanctioned Russian oil that was already in transit.

But some interpreted the latest move as a more significant step.

“It looks like Trump cut a deal with the devil,” Jeremy Siegel, professor emeritus of finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” Friday afternoon.

“It’s not a permanent solution at all. It’s sort of a short-term Band Aid,” Siegel said. “And cutting back on or eliminating sanctions on Russia for the invasion in Ukraine, I think, is a very unfortunate consequence.”