United Wouldn’t Let 2 Girls on a Plane Because It Apparently Has a Leggings Ban

A United Airlines gate agent at the Denver International Airport refused to let multiple women wearing leggings board a flight Sunday because they weren’t adhering to the company’s dress code — prompting outrage on social media from people who called the policy sexist.

“She’s forcing them to change or put dresses on over leggings or they can’t board,” Shannon Watts, who was waiting at a gate at Denver International Airport, tweeted. “Since when does @united police women’s clothing?”

Watts, founder of the Moms Demand Action campaign, said the female gate agent turned away two young women for wearing leggings because they didn’t have anything to change into. A third girl was let on to the flight because she had a dress in her bag.

In a tweet replying to Watts, United said it “shall have the right to refuse passengers who are not properly clothed via our Contract of Carriage.”

The airline then released a second statement on Twitter, attempting to clarify why the girls were prevented from getting on their flight.

According to the contract, the airline can refuse to let a passenger board if he or she is “barefoot or not properly clothed.” It did not specify what “properly clothed” meant. There is also a specific section pertaining to pass travelers, who are required to follow a specific dress code that includes a ban on spandex. The girls who were turned away were standby pass riders, or people traveling as relatives of a United employee.

Many took to Twitter to express outrage over the so-called leggings ban — with some even vowing to stop flying with United.

It is unclear if other airlines have similar policies.

Lawmakers Want to Boycott Companies That Help Build Trump’s Border Wall

As President Trump pushes forward with his promise to a build wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, local officials in cities and states around the nation are proposing creative solutions they hope will stymie its progress.

In San Francisco, a measure introduced this week by Supervisor Hillary Ronen would consign companies that help design or construct the wall to a kind of blacklist, forbidding those firms from bidding on city projects. The city councils of Bay Area neighbors Oakland and Berkeley have already approved similar measures, while Democratic legislators have introduced their own versions of financial penalty bills in states including New York, California, Arizona, Illinois and Rhode Island.

“Corporations will see it’s bad for business and bad for their image,” says Illinois state Rep. Will Guzzardi, who has proposed that certain state pension funds––with assets he estimates to be around $15 billion––divest from any company that aids in erecting a border wall.

Some of these proposals stand virtually no chance of becoming law. In places like Arizona, where Republicans control both chambers of the legislature, the measures have little hope of even getting a committee vote. In the deep blue Bay Area and New York, such bills have a much better chance of taking efffect.

More than 700 firms around the country have expressed interest in helping to construct the border wall, responding to notices posted by the federal government in late February and early March. Trump’s budget plan asked for $1.5 billion in immediate funding to start planning and building the wall. But several large companies with the resources to tackle a project meant to span a nearly 2,000-mile long border, such as Raytheon and Boeing, are not to be found on the list of interested vendors. Some have cited practical concerns about the scale of the project, while others have acknowledged the PR problems associated with the controversial structure. Still, the list of potential vendors keeps growing, hitting 723 firms as of Thursday.

It’s not clear what effect the local measures will have on the thinking of potential contractors. Multiple firms in the Bay Area that have worked with the city of San Francisco in the past and expressed interested the the border wall project did not respond to requests for comment. When contacted by a local news outlet, one San Francisco contractor expressed dismay about the local blacklist proposals. “Why are taxpayer dollars being spent to hold committee meetings to boycott local companies that employ local workers?” James Flanagan told ABC News. “That’s a little on the radical side and basically, our taxpayer dollars are being used against us.”

Oakland city councilman Abel Guillén, who proposed the measure that will forbid his city from “entering into new or amended contracts” with businesses that have contracted to provide goods or services in connection with building the border wall, says the bill is not discriminating based on political views but is “putting companies on notice.” He believes that building a wall does nothing to solve California’s infrastructure or immigration problems and that local funds should not directly or indirectly support the project.

“I can’t direct how the federal government uses their resources,” Guillén says, “but I can influence how tax dollars are used in Oakland.”

Though such politically motivated financial strategies have been used in the past — by states boycotting companies that have boycotted Israel or pulling money out of investments in South Africa during apartheid — the new proposals could face legal challenges.

Ronen, the San Francisco supervisor, acknowledges that possibility. “With any piece of controversial legislation you always anticipate that there might be legal challenges,” she says. “We have to legislate based on what we think is right.” So far, two of her colleagues have signed on as co-sponsors. The bill will be assigned to a committee in the next month before getting an initial vote.

Just as Trump has suggested that his administration will starve sanctuary cities of federal funds, many of these lawmakers see promise in the persuasive power of money. “Corporations by their very nature put the bottom line first, that’s their job,” says Guzzardi. “And we can pull on the financial levers to change the incentive structure.”

Uber’s Leadership Says the Company ‘Must Change’ After Scandals

Uber representatives vowed Tuesday that the company was in the midst of an overhaul, following a pile-up of scandals and shake-ups that have plagued the company for the past several weeks — including allegations of sexism and mismanagement, the departure of the company’s president and a flare-up by CEO Travis Kalanick caught on an Uber driver’s dash camera.

“Uber must change,” said board member Arianna Huffington, “if it is to be as successful in the next decade as it has in the last seven years.” The sole woman on Uber’s board repeatedly emphasized that, going forward, there would be “zero tolerance for anything but totally respectful behavior in an equitable workplace environment.”

Huffington hosted a call with reporters along with the company’s new chief HR officer, Liane Hornsey, and Rachel Holt, who heads Uber’s business in the U.S. and Canada. All three issued full-throated admissions that the company has big problems that are being rooted out in various areas, including Kalanick’s leadership, the way the company operates internally and how the company treats its drivers.

When asked repeatedly if the board had considered asking Kalanick to step down — and whether he would step down if asked — Huffington dismissed that as a hypothetical, saying “It hasn’t come up and we don’t expect it to come up.” The Uber representatives also said that Kalanick, who has been as famous for his brash style as for spearheading the growth of the ride app industry, is changing “almost week by week.”

“Going through what we’ve gone through over the last few weeks,” said Hornsey, who was a longtime Google employee before taking up the HR reins at Uber, “it’s absolutely something that would cause individual and personal change. So I think Travis is going to be hugely collaborative going forward.”

Hornsey added that Kalanick has accepted responsibility for bringing company to this point and has acknowledged his mistakes. Earlier in March, Kalanick admitted he had to “grow up” after a heated argument with a driver was caught on video.

Among the changes that they floated as cures for what ails the company was a search for a new chief operations officer. While the search is ongoing — Kalanick, they said, was not on the call because he was interviewing COO candidates — they described the position as one that would provide balance to Kalanick in a “true partnership.”

Though Huffington said that she had personally spoken to hundreds of employees who demonstrated “real appetites for change internally,” she said she is not formally investigating the company’s problems. The ultimate judgment of whether issues such as sexism and lack of diversity are “systemic problems,” she said, would be revealed through an investigation led by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

His team is collecting information through interviews and anonymous tip lines, with findings expected at the end of April. Huffington vowed that the company would honor the report from Holder’s law firm, whatever it might contain, and make those findings public.

The Uber representatives said that the company is meanwhile using other means to oust any toxic elements of the company culture: holding one hundred listening sessions, training employees on “how to be a good ally,” updating recruiting descriptions to eliminate “unconscious bias” and pushing back against a “cult of the individual” that had come to define the working environment. Hornsey promised that the company’s first report on diversity would be forthcoming.

Holt, the operational expert on the call, described steps the company is taking to be more responsive and fair to drivers — given that many of those relationships are “frayed” — such as communicating with that vast network in a “more human” manner. She also emphasized that despite the PR problems and loss of riders who chose to #DeleteUber earlier this year, Uber has continued to experience growth: both attracting new riders and seeing existing riders take more trips.

Still, she repeated the overarching theme of the call along with her colleagues. “We know we have a long way to go, she said. “Everyone at Uber, including Travis, knows that we must change.”

Here’s Why the U.S. Is Banning Larger Electronics on Some Overseas Flights

The Trump Administration’s new ban on carry-on electronic devices on some international flights has left many wondering why certain devices and airports are being targeted, and why carry-on and checked luggage are treated differently.

Passengers traveling on foreign airlines to the U.S. from 10 airports in eight majority-Muslim countries will be required to place all personal electronic devices larger than a cell phone into checked bags. That includes laptops, tablets, iPads and electronic games. The rules took effect Tuesday, and airlines have 96 hours to implement them.

TIME spoke to aviation security experts about the reasoning behind the rules. Here’s what you need to know:

Why ban laptops and not cell phones?

The Department of Homeland Security directive, which did not reference a specific credible threat, mentioned a February 2016 incident in which an explosive device in a laptop blew a hole in a Somali passenger jet, forcing an emergency landing. One person, the suspected bomber, was killed. Experts reached Tuesday said smart phones don’t pose the same kind of threat.

“This is a world in which size matters,” said Bennet Waters, a counterterrorism expert at the Chertoff Group who served in the Department of Homeland Security.

He referenced the TSA rule that limited the volume of liquid passengers could bring on a flight, concluding that “within certain quantities and if contained in certain ways, liquids, creams and gels did not pose a threat to commercial aviation. But in quantities above that, they might.” Waters said the same logic applies to small smart phones, compared to larger laptops and tablets. “The bigger the device, the more you can get in there,” he said.

Why ban carry-on devices but allow them in checked luggage?

The new security measures suggest a difference in the potential threat associated with carry-on luggage versus checked baggage. Checking electronic devices subjects them to a different screening process and removes them from passengers for the duration of the flight.

“The bags are screened in a different way, often using more advanced technology,” Waters said. “The policy separates the devices themselves from their owners, and they’re placing them into the cargo hold as opposed to having them potentially moving about in the cabin.”

Explosives are easier to spot in checked luggage because the screening process relies on explosive detection systems, which can be more thorough than the standard x-ray machine used at the carry-on security checkpoint, Jeffrey Price, an aviation security expert and aerospace professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver, said in an email.

Price said it’s harder for someone to detonate a bomb when it’s in cargo because that would mean setting it off with a timer or with a trigger device based on barometric pressure. “It’s less complicated to command detonate when it’s with you,” he said.

Why target these airports?

The new restrictions affect airports in Amman, Jordan; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Cairo; Istanbul; Jeddah and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Casablanca, Morocco; Doha, Qatar; and Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. A statement from the Department of Homeland Security said the affected airports and airlines were selected “based on the current threat picture.” Sheldon Jacobson, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who studies aviation security, questioned whether the rules could create a “porous security environment” if other countries don’t adopt similar rules. The United Kingdom followed the U.S. on Tuesday by announcing a similar ban on certain electronic devices, affecting select flights from six countries.

Waters said the targeted rules were likely a result of the TSA’s varying confidence levels in screening procedures at different airports.

How will this affect travelers?

The primary effect on travelers will be two-fold, Waters said. They’ll have to endure a long flight without a laptop or tablet, and they’ll have to check a bag if they’re traveling with one of these devices.

Waters, who will be traveling through one of the 10 affected airports during a trip next week, praised the measures as a “very reasonable set of mitigation strategies to limit the overall risk.”

While some travelers have already criticized the rule as a hassle, Waters said he saw it as a relatively small sacrifice.

“I’m never a guy who checks a bag, and I’m always a guy who uses a laptop during the flight,” Waters said. “I will be inconvenienced by this, and I have absolutely no heartburn whatsoever with what TSA has done.”

Trump Administration Bans Small Electronic Devices on Certain Overseas Flights

The Trump Administration is banning personal electronic devices larger than a cell phone on flights to the U.S. from 10 overseas airports, the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security announced early Tuesday.

The government issued an Emergency Amendment/Security Directive to affected airports and airlines at 3 a.m. Tuesday, giving them 96 hours to ensure compliance. All passenger electronics larger than a smart phone will be required to be placed in checked baggage, the agencies announced. There is no impact on domestic flights or on flights originating from the U.S., officials said.

“Evaluated intelligence indicates that terrorist groups continue to target commercial aviation and are aggressively pursuing innovative methods to undertake their attacks, to include smuggling explosive devices in various consumer items,” a senior Administration official told reporters late Monday.

Officials refused to say whether the announcement was made regarding a specific threat, but indicated it came as part of a broader review of security measures. “As a matter of policy we don’t publicly discuss intelligence information,” the official said.

“The United States remains concerned about terrorist groups’ continued interest in targeting civil aviation,” another senior Administration official said.

The ban affects 10 airlines that fly direct service to the U.S. from Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Kuwait.

The airports are Queen Alia International Airport (AMM), Cairo International Airport (CAI), Ataturk International Airport (IST), King Abdul-Aziz International Airport (JED), King Khalid International Airport (RUH), Kuwait International Airport (KWI), Mohammed V Airport (CMN), Hamad International Airport (DOH), Dubai International Airport (DXB), and Abu Dhabi International Airport (AUH). Nine airlines are affected, including Emirates and Etihad.

The State Department has notified foreign governments of the restrictions, an official said.

The disruptive electronics ban, which will include laptops, tablets, e-readers, cameras, portable DVD players, and gaming devices larger than a smartphone, is not permanent, but nor is there a date for its expiration. Officials said they regularly reevaluate security concerns and would update the policy if warranted.

Officials pointed to the attempted 2016 downing of Daallo Airlines Flight 159, in which a suicide bomber tried to bring down a Somali airliner with what was believed to be a bomb concealed in a laptop. Egyptian officials also revealed in December that traces of explosives were found on the bodies of the passengers of EgyptAir Flight 804, which was downed last year.

Airlines that fly to the U.S. are subject to strict security requirements and must comply with TSA directives.

Officials said they coordinated with the FAA about the placement of additional lithium ion batteries in aircraft cargo holds and determined that the risk of a potential attack outweighed the potential risk of battery fire—an emerging FAA concern.

News of the ban first emerged on social media Monday in postings from Royal Jordanian Airlines, one of the affected carriers, though it mistakenly suggested that the restrictions would be imposed on flights originating from the U.S.

Notably the restrictions include Abu Dhabi International Airport, where U.S. Customs and Border Protection maintains a “preclearance” facility for U.S.-bound travelers. Officials said it was included out of an “abundance of caution.”

David Rockefeller, Billionaire Businessman and Philanthropist, Dies at 101

(NEW YORK) — David Rockefeller, the billionaire businessman and philanthropist who was the last in his generation of one of the country’s most famously philanthropic families, died Monday. He was 101.

Rockefeller died in his sleep at his home in suburban Pocantico Hills, New York, according to his spokesman, Fraser P. Seitel.

He was the youngest of six children born to John D. Rockefeller Jr. and the grandson of Standard Oil co-founder John D. Rockefeller. With the passing of his siblings, he became the guardian of his family’s fortune and head of a sprawling network of family interests, both business and philanthropic, that ranged from environmental conservation to the arts.

To mark his 100th birthday in 2015, Rockefeller gave 1,000 acres of land next to a national park to the state of Maine.

Aspects of the Rockefeller brothers’ upbringing became famous, including the 25-cent allowance, portions of which had to be set aside for charity and savings, and the inculcation that wealth brings great responsibility.

Two of his brothers held elected office: Nelson Rockefeller served as the governor of New York, hungered for the White House and briefly served as vice president. Winthrop Rockefeller was a governor of Arkansas.

David Rockefeller, however, wielded power and influence without ever seeking public office. Among his many accomplishments were spurring the project that led to the World Trade Center.

And unlike his other brothers, John D. III and Laurance, who shied from the spotlight and were known for philanthropy, David Rockefeller embraced business and traveled and spoke widely as a champion of enlightened capitalism.

“American capitalism has brought more benefits to more people than any other system in any part of the world at any time in history,” he said. “The problem is to see that the system is run as efficiently and as honestly as it can be.”

Rockefeller graduated from Harvard in 1936 and received a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1940. He served in the Army during World War II, then began climbing the ranks of management at Chase Bank. That bank merged with The Manhattan Company in 1955.

He was named Chase Manhattan’s president in 1961 and chairman and chief executive officer eight years later. He retired in 1981 at age 65 after a 35-year career.

In his role of business statesman, Rockefeller preached capitalism at home and favored assisting economies abroad on grounds that bringing prosperity to the Third World would create customers for American products.

He parted company with some of his fellow capitalists on income taxes, calling it unseemly to earn $1 million and then find ways to avoid paying taxes on it. He didn’t say how much he paid in taxes and never spoke publicly about his personal worth. In 2015, Forbes magazine estimated his fortune at $3 billion.

As one of the Rockefeller grandchildren, David belonged to the last generation in which the inherited family billions were concentrated in a few hands. The next generation, known as “the cousins,” has more people.

Rockefeller was estimated to have met more than 200 rulers in more than 100 countries during his lifetime, and often was treated as if he were a visiting head of state.

Under Rockefeller, Chase was the first U.S. bank to open offices in the Soviet Union and China and, in 1974, the first to open an office in Egypt after the Suez crisis of 1956.

In his early travels to South Africa, Rockefeller arranged clandestine meetings with several underground black leaders. “I find it terribly important to get overall impressions beyond those I get from businessmen,” he said.

But Rockefeller took a lot of heat for his bank’s substantial dealings with South Africa’s white separatist regime and for helping the deposed, terminally ill Shah of Iran come to New York for medical treatment in 1979, the move that triggered the 13-month U.S. embassy hostage crisis in Tehran.

Rockefeller maintained the family’s patronage of the arts, including its long-standing relationship with New York’s Museum of Modern Art, of which his mother had been a fervent patron. His private art collection was once valued at $500 million. The Rockefeller estate overlooking the Hudson River north of New York City is the repository of four generations of family history, including Nelson’s art and sculpture collection.

One of the major efforts of Rockefeller’s later years was directed at restoring family influence in the landmark Rockefeller Center, most of which had been sold in the 1980s to Japanese investors. He eventually organized an investor group to buy back 45 percent of the property.

His philanthropy and other activities earned him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in 1998.

Rockefeller and his wife, the former Margaret McGrath, married in 1940 and had six children — David Jr., Richard, Abby, Neva, Margaret and Eileen. His wife, an active conservationist, died in 1996.

Nintendo Plans to Double Switch Production after Strong Sales

Nintendo is planning to double production of its Switch console, which launched on March 3, due to high demand, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Although Nintendo had initially intended to manufacture eight million Switch consoles, the company is said to produce 16 million during the fiscal year starting in April 2017. That means Nintendo is hoping to sell more than 10 million Switches in a 12-month period, according to the Journal.

Read more: Review: The Switch is the Nintendo System We’ve Been Waiting For

Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime recently told TIME that within five days of availability, the Switch had cemented itself as the fastest-selling system the company has ever had in the United States — a much-needed success following the Wii U. Nintendo’s previous generation console, launched in 2012, is said to have been the company’s slowest selling console ever.

Nintendo CEO Tatsumi Kimishima has previously said the company will ship two million units globally this month, but the Journal says that number will likely be closer to 2.5 million. The success comes even though the Switch’s roster of games available at launch is notably slimmer than the selection that was available for the Wii U upon its release. In response to TIME’s request for comment, Nintendo said it doesn’t have any updates to share regarding production plans for the Switch.

The Switch, which was sold out at many retailers as far back as January, also comes off the success of Nintendo’s NES Classic. Despite supply shortages, the company sold 1.5 million units of it revamped retro console as of February 2017.