Two years ago, a young doctor with no children named Zoey met with her financial advisor. In the meeting, her advisor encouraged her to “invest” in a variable life insurance policy. It cost $350 per month.

The policy came with a lengthy manual that purported to explain the convoluted product she had been sold, including a cap on her gains of 6.5%.

Life insurance is a notoriously scammy industry, made more confusing by the fact that there are legitimate forms of life insurance that aren’t a total waste of money—but combining the desire to insure with the intention to invest is where things get expensive.

At no point in hours of sales pitches and meetings did the advisor breathe a word to Zoey about the product’s fees. So, what percentage of her costs were passed straight through to her advisor, and what’s the policy worth now? She joined me on the show this week to talk about it—and why she’s still struggling to get out.

There’s a magical number you’ll reach on your savings journey that will—assuming you leave the investments alone to marinate in their own juices for 30 years—produce a retirement-supporting amount of money. Translation: You’re at “coast” financial independence, the point at which you can take your foot off the gas and prioritize other things because compounding will do the bulk of the work for you. So how valid is the safety net? Here’s how to calculate whether or not you’ve crossed this threshold, and what new opportunities it might unlock.

Apparently, girls are going wild for products with highly active ingredients intended for the unsightly aging skin of us haggard 20- and 30-somethings, with one 10-year-old reporting that she uses them because she “doesn’t want to look old, no offense.” I remain unconvinced that “preteens using expensive high-end anti-aging wrinkle creams” is a widespread problem for any group outside of a pretty small, upper-class set (I mean, could you afford $50 skincare products in middle school?). Regardless, I’m supportive of any reporting that sharpens the focus on how deranged this trend is (whether pervasive or not).

This is almost certainly the first time I’m linking a paper from the National Library of Medicine, but this paper’s premise felt like whiplash: Collectively, neoliberal ideology is associated with poorer health and well-being outcomes—but at the individual level, the worldview might promote self-reliance and self-esteem. P-A-R-A-D-O-X alert! (Please gently hum the HOT TO GO! chorus to yourself now.)

A new U.S. law requiring airlines to automatically refund passengers whose flights are canceled or significantly delayed is, unsurprisingly, the target of a campaign for its reversal from the lobbying group Airlines for America. Having worked on the online self-service flows at a major US airline for several years, I actually totally buy the logistical concern—that changing a reservation system to automatically issue refunds might interfere with rebooking flows for stranded customers—but the consumer in me (who just forked over a bunch of money to United when American last-minute canceled a flight with no other options) is like, I don’t care, figure it out, assholes.

What is this feeling coursing through my veins? Is it…could it be…deranged and unprecedented levels of optimism? That’s how I felt after listening to Ezra Klein’s conversation with Tim Walz. It’s been so long since I’ve felt inspired by a candidate’s ability to bridge the gap not with contempt, but with common sense and civility. His comments about prioritizing simplicity in policy—e.g., not means-testing his free school lunch program, because doing so would increase administrative costs and undermine the intention of the program—has the side effect of making things a little better for everyone, like parents who are glad to spend mornings with their kids, not packing breakfasts and lunches.