If seeing "Finding Dory" in theaters wasn't enough for you, Airbnb is offering a lucky few the chance to spend the night with the famous blue fish in their latest sweepstakes.

The new specialty lodging in their "Night at" giveaway is a floating apartment on top of the Great Barrier Reef, home base of Nemo, Marlin, Dory, and friends.

Enter to win a free night's stay for four guests, which will take place July 13 and 14.

Check out the dreamy digs below.

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the world's seven natural wonders. This is a once-in-a-lifetime way to see it from a whole new perspective.

The floating home sleeps four — two adults and two kids — and has "Finding Dory"-themed rules like "No clownfish jokes" and "Speak like a whale."

The master suite has open walls so you can hear the waves lapping at your feet all night long.

When I was a teenager, my family went on one of those bus tours of Europe, where we saw everything — we took 15-minute photo stops in front of landmarks from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to the Amsterdam Central Train Station. But now looking back, I realize we really saw nothing.

While monuments should dictate your itinerary in Europe, it's really how you take in the sights that will make your trip. And with the sheer amount of things to see and do, traveling in Europe, especially with a big group, can get overwhelming. That's why it's one of the best continents to visit alone, where you can really see everything at your own pace.

Related: Hacks for Mastering Solo Travel 

I've spent alone time in big metropolises like London and Paris; good-sized cities like Stockholm, Copenhagen, Berlin, Dusseldorf, and Vienna; and smaller towns like Bergen. In each case, letting myself wander and getting lost led to some of the most memorable moments on the trip, like when I swapped cameras with other single travelers on the towering outdoor spire of Copenhagen’s Vor Frelsers Kirke, or when I relaxed in the pools of Stockholm's historic Centralbadet bath house alongside locals of all ages. For more tips on how to meet people while traveling, click here.

When choosing your ideal destination, think about whether you'd prefer a large city with a simple public transportation system to help you cover more ground, or a smaller town that’s easy to explore on foot. Also consider whether you're looking for an activity-filled city or one where you can kick back and relax. Watching your own back is always necessary, even in the most crime-free locations, but many European cities have safe reputations, so that you can focus more on where you go than how you go.

Taking in all those considerations, here's a list of cities that are most welcoming to solo travelers — and where you can build your own ultimate Eurotrip.

SEE ALSO: 30 incredible beaches to visit in your lifetime

DON'T MISS: Follow Business Insider's lifestyle page on Facebook!

Copenhagen

Copenhagen's two-line metro system may look sparse, but it gets you exactly where you need to go (including from the airport to town) and makes it incredibly easy to jet around the Danish city. For the spots in between, grab a City Bike (some now equipped with built-in GPS) and pedal right into the 242 miles of designated lanes. No wonder Copenhagen's been named the best bike city in the world. For where to stay, eat, and drink, check out our guide to the city and our list of the best cocktail bars around. 

Paris

Forget the romance: the City of Lights is just as magical for a party of one. First, check off the necessary Parisian requirements: strolling down the Champs-Élysées, wandering the winding paths of Montmartre, and exploring the halls of the Louvre. My favorite discovery was the Sainte Chapelle — its stained glass was so dramatic that I was grateful for the opportunity to take it in at my own pace. And for a quirky and free place to stay, become a Tumbleweed at the English bookshop Shakespeare and Company, where you pay for your night's stay by volunteering at the store for a few hours, reading a book a day, and writing a one-page autobiography.

Stockholm

The Swedish capital truly has it all: a cobble-stoned old town with pedestrian-only roads, 57 bridges that stretch over its 14 islands, an amusement park dating back to 1880s, a bath house from 1904, and the most artistic subway stations, each decorated with its own theme. So it was no surprise that the free walking tours in town were dominated by solo travelers finding their own piece of the low-crime city.

Scientists still don't fully understand sleep, but it's clear that getting enough of it is very important, since being well-rested comes with a myriad of health benefits.

For the 40% of the US population that gets less than seven hours per night, there are plenty of devices, both physical and digital, that can help you snooze better.

Give one of these a try.

SEE ALSO: 12 foods that will help you sleep

Sense sleep tracker

This sleep tracker will score the quality of your sleep based on a number of factors including noise, air quality, and lighting, and has an alarm that will wake you up at the lightest part of your sleep cycle. It will also play calming sounds and give advice about how to improve your sleep.

The device has two parts: a white ball that sits on your nightstand and a "pill" that's tucked underneath your pillow to monitor your movement while you sleep.

Get it on Amazon for $129.

Chrona pillow insert

The Chrona is placed inside your pillow case, and can measure the movements of your head and torso. But the real draw is the low-frequency noise it emits to help boost your deep sleep. It'll also use higher-frequency sounds to help you enter a lighter stage of sleep before you have to wake up.

You can pre-order one on Chrona's website for $169.

Utopia Bedding blackout drapes

Darkness sets off cues that tell your body it's time to sleep. So if you're prone to staying up late and rising later, drapes that block sunlight — like these blackout curtains from Utopia Bedding — can help you stay asleep in the morning.

In addition to keeping your bedroom dark, Utopia Bedding's curtains get rave reviews for their durability, insulation, and even their ability to block out noise.

You can order a pair from Amazon for around $30 — they come in various colors.

If you were around in the 1990s, you undoubtedly remember when the faces of video games were not stern dads and hard-edged military men, but were instead cute mascots that occasionally brought a bit of attitude.

While stalwarts like Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog have (to varying degrees) remained relevant past the turn of the century, former heavy hitters like Crash Bandicoot have gone by the wayside.

Not content with being a mere footnote in video game history, Crash Bandicoot is making his triumphant return to the spotlight.

First, he'll appear as a figurine and playable character in the popular toys-to-life game "Skylanders" in October. Then, his first three adventures from the original PlayStation will be fully remastered for PS4 in 2017. 

This was huge news when it was revealed at E3 last week, as it lit social media aflame even as tons of amazing-looking new games were revealed left and right. But there are plenty of reasons for that. Here's why the classic "Crash Bandicoot" games were so impactful.

SEE ALSO: Here's how your iPhone will change when iOS 10 comes out

1. The character is charming.

Even if you're not a fan of the real-life marsupial for which he's named, Crash Bandicoot is a pretty cool guy. Running around shirtless with some jorts and sneakers was a hot look in the 90s, and Crash rocked it. 

More importantly, Crash had just the right combination of family-friendly appeal and attitude that made his games seem a bit less like they were for kids than something like "Super Mario 64," which helped the PlayStation establish dominance over the Nintendo 64. He was the right character at the right time in the right place.

2. The games were simple and fun.

If you've played mobile games over the past few years, the image above might look familiar to you. The original "Crash Bandicoot" games were basically "Temple Run," albeit with a bit more depth and longevity. As Crash, you either ran forwards or backwards along narrow jungle corridors, collecting items, defeating enemies with his signature spin move, and jumping across perilous bottomless pits. 

It wasn't complicated, but it didn't need to be. It was simple, challenging and addictive, and it's a testament to its value that it lives on in the form of phone games today.

3. The games looked fantastic (at the time).

It might be tough to tell now, but back then, the "Crash Bandicoot" games looked incredible. They were bright and colorful, and in an era when technology meant games couldn't have as much detail in characters or levels, Crash was incredibly expressive. His big eyes and variety of facial expressions made him feel more like a cartoon character than past video game mascots.

Killer robots are incredibly hotly debated for a technology that doesn't actually exist yet.

The term broadly refers to any theoretical technology that can deliberately deploy lethal force against human targets without explicit human authorisation.

While a drone might identify a potential target, it will always await for human commands — for its controller to "pull the trigger." But Lethal Autonomous Weapons (LAWs), as "killer robots" are more technically referred to, may be programmed to engage anyone it identifies as a lawful target within a designated battlefield, without anyone directly controlling it and without seeking human confirmation before a kill.

It's the subject of significant ongoing research and development, and unsurprisingly, it has proved wildly controversial. NGOs and pressure groups are lobbying for LAWs to be preemptively banned before they can be created because of the risks they allegedly pose. "Allowing life or death decisions to be made by machines crosses a fundamental moral line,"argues the Campaign to Ban Killer Robots.

But there are also strong arguments in favour of developing LAWs, from a potential reduction in human casualties to increased accountability — as well necessity in the face of rapidly evolving threats, everywhere from the physical battlefield to cyberspace.

William Boothby, a former lawyer and Air Commodore in the RAF, has contributed to pioneering research on the subject of LAWs, and holds a doctorate in international law. Business Insider spoke to him to get his perspective of why "killer robots," in some circumstances, aren't actually such a bad idea.

“You don’t get emotion. You don’t get anger. You don’t get revenge. You don’t get panic and confusion. You don’t get perversity,” Boothby says.

And that’s just the start.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Autonomous weapons could save civilian lives — and we’re closer to them than you might expect.

Rob Price: Do you support the development of lethal autonomous weapons — and in what circumstances?

Dr. William Boothby: Well, I wouldn’t put it in those blunt terms. I support the research and the development of the technology, with a view to achieving autonomous systems which are able to operate at least on a more reliable basis than human beings.

I recognise that there are in existence certain technologies already, such as Iron Dome [an automated Israeli missile defence system] and Phalanx [a naval defensive weapons system], where what you have essentially is a system that works autonomously when certain events occur.

But there is a distinction between “point defence” and what you could call an offensive system — the latter being a system which goes out and seeks its own target, as opposed to one like Iron Dome that is there to wait until rockets are inbound and then take them out.

The distinction is based on the notion that if you’re engaged in point defence, and if you have programmed the system appropriately so that it only reacts to what would be legitimate threats — i.e. rockets but not airliners, then there ought not to be a problem.

However, the minute that we’re talking about something going out on the offensive for objects to attack, then we are talking about something that is rather more problematic — because all of those complications within targeting law come into play in a way that they don’t necessarily when you’re dealing with point defence.

Price: So what are the most compelling arguments for using autonomous weaponry in an offensive capacity?

Boothby: I think that if you’re looking into the future, the only way you can interpret arguments for and against is by looking at the potential nature of the future battlespace.

I am clear in my own mind that autonomy in the future will gradually emerge in all environments — in the land environment, in the air environment, in the surface and subsurface sea in the environment, and in cyberspace and outer space.

Increasingly, you are going to see the human beings as the weakest link in the operation of both offensive and defensive systems, and the problem is that potentially you’re going to be in a situation where speed is going to be the challenge — rendering autonomy as essential.

Or, you are talking in terms of such a mass of a threat that the human being is going to be the weakest link because they just can’t compute in relation to scale, scope, and extent of the inbound threat.

Secondly, any discussion about autonomy in isolation is nonsense.

One has to talk about autonomy in terms of what it is being developed in order to counter, and if you have a situation in which, for instance, the threat is never going to be prohibited, what on earth is the justification for prohibiting the only possible way of responding?

This is all in very vague and theoretical terms. so here is an example:

Imagine a soldier has been given the job of clearing a row of houses with his patrol.

They haven’t a clue whether there’s terrorists in those houses, or peaceful families. They’re going down a brightly sun-lit street going from one house to the next and as this soldier goes into one particular building, he’s terrified. He goes from the light into the darkness. And in the darkness he detects movement. And in terror he empties his gun inside that particular room and kills all the occupants.

And it’s only afterwards that it’s worked out that the movement was that of a baby.

Yet, imagine the possibility of designing the type of technology where the machine would be capable of going inside the building and would have sensors that are able to distinguish between the movement of a large metallic object like a weapon and something lacking that metallic content — and would potentially be in a position to save those lives.

So, what is it that machines have that human beings don’t? Clearly, you don’t get emotion. You don’t get anger. You don’t get revenge. You don’t get panic and confusion. You don’t get perversity, in the sense that machinery won’t go rogue.

However, because the machinery has been made by human beings you do get fallibility.

There is currently no international law that specifically applies to autonomous weapons.

Price: What’s the current legal status of autonomous weapons?

Boothby: The international law that applies to autonomous weapon technologies is exactly the same international law that applies to any other weapon technology.

There are basic principles that apply to all states, and specific rules about particular technologies.

There is a prohibition on the use of any weapon system that is of a nature to cause any unnecessary injury or suffering for which there is no corresponding military purpose. Adding an irritant to a bullet so that in addition to inflicting the kinetic injury it would also cause an additional irritant suffering effect for which there is no corresponding military purpose. That’s rule number one. It applies to all states and all weapons.

Rule number two is it is prohibited to use all weapons that are indiscriminate by nature i.e. which you can’t direct at a particular target, or the effect of which you cannot reasonably limit to the chosen target.

Thirdly, it is prohibited to use weapons which have prohibited damaging effects on the natural environment.

There are no specific rules dealing with autonomy. But the autonomous weapon system may use a particular injuring or damaging technology which itself may be the subject of a specific provision.

For example, an autonomous mine system, if it’s an anti-personnel mine, would be prohibited in states that are party to the Ottawa convention. If it’s not, there are lots of other treaties that have technical provisions dealing with vehicle mines.

So, if you were wanting to talk about the autonomous nature of the thing specifically, then there is no ad-hoc legal provision dealing with autonomy.

It doesn’t stop there. The issue is this: In the hands of its user, a weapon is that user’s tool that they use as an instrument to cause damage.

Once you’re discussing a weapon that is autonomous, you are talking about something where it isn’t the individual who is deciding what specifically is to be targeted but the weapon itself. Therefore, that brings in the law that relates to targeting.

The question then becomes whether the autonomous weapon system is capable of being used in accordance with targeting law rules that would normally be implemented by a human being.

There are some elements of the targeting law rules that autonomous weapon technology will be capable of addressing because, for example, the weapon system can be designed specifically to recognise an object that constitutes a military objective i.e. a lawful target.

Targeting law also requires an attacker to consider whether a planned attack would be indiscriminate.

When you are thinking about that sort of evaluative decision making, at the moment, autonomous technology would not be capable of doing that. There may, however, be circumstances where an autonomous weapon system can be used legitimately at the moment.

For example, imagine that you were undertaking military operations in areas of desert, or areas of remote open ocean. You may know because of patterns of life and surveillance that you’ve done, what you would expect the sensors to see — and you could simply program the weapon system not to attack if the sensors see anything other than that which is expected.

But the minute that you move down the scale to more congested, urban targeting environments, the more difficult it will be to justify the use of current autonomous technologies.

Killer robots get to the heart of the question: “What is the nature of warfare?”

Price: Do you think autonomous weaponry could make warfare safer and more accountable?

Boothby: I think that there is that possibility — if technology develops appropriately in that direction and if these new systems are only deployed when they have been improved and tested appropriately and used responsibly. There is the potential for civilian casualties to be reduced somewhat by the use of autonomous weapons systems.

But the argument by some is the other way. The argument is that once you’ve got machines and the grotesque warfare consisting of machine versus machine, without too much human involvement, involving one’s self in such warfare actually becomes that much easier.

I would think that there’s a fairly significant element of the ethical about this, in the sense that you would have to ask yourself at some point in the future 'what is the nature of warfare? What is warfare? What is it all about?' Is it all about machine versus machine? You’ll hear the argument that ‘I am prepared to take my chances in warfare but I do not accept being killed by the decision of a machine.’ Then you’ll hear others turning around and saying ‘I don’t want to be killed whether it’s by human or machine.’ I think it is very difficult to know how the ethical side is going to play.

I think there’s a tendency of people to look at technology as it is now and look into the future and say is that technology acceptable? I would ask myself whether there is merit in going in the reverse direction.

Imagine ourselves in a situation in which we have developed machine versus machine warfare and we have all become used to it. How acceptable would it be to go back to the arrangements that we had previously?

You don’t get that being discussed often in those terms, because people don’t seem to think in that way. There’s a tendency of human beings to think in a single direction when sometimes it’s useful to think in reverse.

Of course, anyone who is talking about machine warfare as no-casualty warfare is in cloud cuckoo land Let’s be honest, there’s always going to be victims and it is always going to be a tragedy.

Price: Is there a risk that that autonomous weaponry could encourage more destructive wars when soldiers’ lives aren’t at stake?

Boothby: There’s all sorts of possibilities, and that’s one of them. And then there's also the worry about what happens when autonomous technology gets in the hands of non-state actors.

So yes, maybe is my answer to this one. There’s a lot of speculation about some of these questions.

We delude ourselves if we look at one particular type of tech in isolation. I think we need increasingly to recognise that at the same time that autonomous technologies are being developed, other technologies are being developed as well — notably cyber.

And the minute you start thinking of autonomous technologies, you should then start worrying, or thinking, about the potential for cyber techniques potentially to be used to get inside an enemy’s autonomous weapons system, and either take them over or distort the way they make their decision making, or whatever.

Equally, there are other challenges. A lot of autonomy is going to be based on the use of artificial intelligence. It’s going to be what I described in the second edition of my book, "Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict," as artificial learning intelligence (ALI) as opposed to artificial intelligence simpliciter as it were.

What we’re talking about is the ability of a machine to learn lessons, and learn its own lessons — not necessarily the lessons it’s been told to learn.

So then you get into the question of, right, it may be learning lessons other than the ones you told it to learn, but  have you told it which lessons it musn’t learn, and have you thought through which lessons it aught not to learn, and why, and checked that the system you’re deploying is going to be safe from that perspective?

Boston Dynamics, a robot group born out of MIT and currently owned by Google, makes absolutely incredible robots.

From giant dog robots to ones resembling humans, these are definitely the most advanced robots we've ever seen.

Here's Boston Dynamics' wild robots:

BigDog is a giant robot that can handle rough terrain like it's a piece of cake.

At three feet tall and 240 pounds, the robot can carry a whopping 340-pound load.

Robots, they're just like us!

RAW Embed

BigDog took a nice stroll along a beach in Thailand once. When it's not taking long walks on the beach, the robot can run at four miles per hour.

And it takes kicks like a champ!

RAW Embed

BigDog has great reflexes that allows it keep its balance when hiking muddy trails, climbing on rough terrain, or even being kicked.

At Business Insider, we believe capitalism can and should be a force for good. With this inaugural edition of Business Insider 100: The Creators, we are celebrating leaders who embody this spirit.

Many rankings focus only on those who have achieved great financial success. Our CEO Henry Blodget sums up the drawbacks of such a focus:

"The more money you make, the implication is, the better and more successful you are. We believe this cheapens the mission and sense of purpose that many great business leaders bring to their companies and products. And it certainly undersells their inspiring accomplishments."

Over the course of several months, we scoured the business landscape for inventive leaders making bold moves to create value for four constituencies: shareholders, employees, consumers, and society.

We scoured the business landscape for inventive leaders making bold moves.

We found companies from around the world, both public and private, across many industries. We considered not only what they have created, but how. We consulted a variety of databases, including Glassdoor to gauge employee sentiment and Wealth-X to chart noteworthy philanthropic missions.

Not every company is a standout in each criteria. Companies with a questionable record with their employees, for example, weren't necessarily eliminated, but they rank lower than similar companies that make employee welfare a priority. Size wasn't a deciding factor. Small companies adding great value to the world, like Toms, outranked many multinational conglomerates, such as IKEA. Other entrants, such as Uber and Snapchat, make the list primarily because they have created dramatic economic or cultural impact, attracting millions of customers daily.

To celebrate many of these inspiring people and success stories, we're pleased to present Business Insider 100: The Creators.

The Creators: Ranked 1 to 100

The Creators: Sorted A to Z by company

More stories about these 100 business visionaries

Edited by Alex Morrell. 

Additional editing and reporting by Matthew DeBord, Diane Galligan, Mo Hadi, Ashley Lutz, Lydia Ramsey, Matt Rosoff, Sara Silverstein, Dave Smith, and Matthew Turner. 

100. Andras Forgacs

Cofounder and CEO, Modern Meadow

 Modern Meadow’s cofounder and CEO, Andras Forgacs, believes that as our population grows to 10 billion people in the next few decades we will need 100 billion animals to sustain our meat, dairy, and leather needs. Modern Meadow has found a way to grow food and leather in its lab using biofabrication, which takes small biopsies from animals, leaving them unharmed.

Modern Meadow says its solution will mean 99% less land required for animals, 96% less water to create the meat, 96% fewer greenhouse gases emitted, and 45% less energy needed to produce the biofabricated animal materials.

Forgacs, who also cofounded the 3-D organ printing company Organovo, says the meat takes less than a week to produce, and the leather takes less than two weeks. Compared to the years it takes to raise animals, that’s almost like no time at all, Modern Meadow just needs to figure out how to commercialize it first. Forgacs told Crain’s he sees the products hitting the market in 2018.

99. Jessica Alba

Cofounder, The Honest Company

In 2011, Jessica Alba pivoted from entertainment to entrepreneurship, launching The Honest Company — a startup dedicated to producing eco-friendly household and beauty products. The idea came to her years before, when she was starting a family and tested a baby detergent that caused her to break out in a rash. Alba was frustrated to find dubious ingredients and safety records for many other household products, so she took matters into her own hands, starting The Honest Company with entrepreneur Brian Lee.

Though it began as an online shopping site, The Honest Company’s products eventually hit the shelves in stores like Costco, Nordstrom, and Whole Foods. As it has expanded, its dedication to creating sustainable products and making a social difference hasn’t wavered, earning it B Corporation certification in 2012. Alba also takes care of her more than 500 employees, announcing this year a benefit of up to 16 weeks paid parental leave for new parents, up from 10 weeks.

But the brand has hit a few bumps in the road. It has faced a spate of lawsuits alleging its products — including baby formula, shampoo, detergent, and sunscreen — contain the same nonorganic, unsafe ingredients the company was created to avoid. The Honest Company has denied the accusations and is fighting the lawsuits.

Alba hasn’t let the flap slow it down. The budding retail operation, which has raised over $200 million in funding and is estimated to be worth $1.7 billion, has been flirting with an IPO this year.

98. David Reis

CEO, Stratasys

The world’s largest 3-D printing company, Stratasys develops and manufactures professional printers and materials capable of building everything from factory parts to dental equipment to personal projects. The company also encompasses smaller ventures such as MakerBot, known for leading the charge in desktop 3-D printing.

In 2012, Stratasys merged with Objet, another leader in the 3-D printing space, to become a dominant firm worth an approximate $3 billion at the time. Objet CEO David Reis also came over with the acquisition, taking over as chief executive of the new, larger company.

Under the leadership of Reis, who will step down as CEO this summer, the two companies’ histories abound with milestones for the industry, including introducing the first 3-D printer available for under $30,000 in 2002, launching the world’s first multimaterial 3-D printer in 2007, and building the first printer to combine more than 100 materials in 2012.

In April, Stratasys added one more milestone to that list. It debuted a new printer than can seamlessly switch between 360,0000 colors and up to six materials. To put the technology into perspective, an OtterBox phone case would previously take three full days to prototype, but using the new printer, it can be made in a mere 30 minutes. The technology will help cut down production time — and cost — on everything from stop-motion animation to airplane parts.

Despite year-over-year revenue losses and a slowdown in the 3-D printing industry at large, Stratasys beat Wall Street expectations for its fourth-quarter earnings, and its stock surged nearly 30% in March.

Nobody wants to be the office idiot.

Your coworkers will pity you, and laugh at you. But they certainly won't admire or respect you.

Worried your coworkers have labeled you the "dense" one in the office?

There's a fairly simple way to figure it out: Look for the following behaviors in your coworkers — and yourself.

If the signs are there, then there's a good chance that they think you're dumb.

SEE ALSO: 17 signs your coworkers secretly hate you

1. They always argue with you

Some people just love to pick fights. But, if you feel like you're constantly getting piled on by multiple coworkers over minor things, then that's a bad sign. They might be squabbling because they see you as an easy target — someone they can put down to prove their own intelligence.

2. They're terse and sarcastic 

Don't you hate getting texts that just say "k"? The conversational equivalent of that may be a sign that your colleagues underestimate your intelligence.

If their responses tend to be short and blunt with a side of sarcasm, then they probably don't value your insight very much. 

3. Their body language is rude

Sneering. Glaring. Staring. Smirking. Eye rolling.

If you notice this contemptuous body language in your coworkers, then that pretty much confirms that you're the target of workplace mockery.

I was recently visited by a good friend I went to university with.

He’s still in the field of architecture, and it was the first time we’d seen each other since I’d given up on the industry in favor of entrepreneurship.

During his visit we talked a lot about the Architecture industry as a whole, our biggest problems with it, and why I ultimately decided it wasn’t what I wanted.

I described moments at my job when I was working on designs for a high-end luxury apartment in the Lower East Side and thinking, “If I stay in this job, I will never be able to live like this.”

Not that I dreamt of luxury penthouses and a $70,000 custom millwork closet (yes, this happened), but I did dream of financial freedom and travel, as well as working for myself.

I started a side project, Calm The Ham, which after 18 months of work was making decent money, especially compared to the $40,000 I was making at my job (which does not stretch far living in New York City).

I was only able to work on Calm the Ham on weeknights and weekends, which slowly became harder and harder as I juggled this new life. In the 6 months prior to quitting my more stable job, I kept thinking what if I had the time and resources to make my newer venture full-time.

What could I create if it was my only focus?

Then the negative thoughts would kick in. I don’t have an MBA. I never took a business studies class in high school. What do I know about running and growing a business? I wasn’t about to quit my job, join an MBA program, and then start a business. I didn’t have the time, patience, or money for that.

I needed to learn the basic principles of business, both running and growing one.

I made a reading list for myself of all the business books I had heard about from people I admired or that had been recommended to me personally. I spent $237.91 on 22 books, a hefty investment for me at the time and got reading. 

SEE ALSO: 14 books Mark Zuckerberg thinks everyone should read

Personal Mindset & Inspiration: 'Awaken The Giant Within' by Tony Robbins

An inspirational book by Tony Robbins. Difficult to drill down to one lesson I’ve learned but essentially this book has the potential to change your life.

Find it on Amazon >>

'Outliers' by Malcolm Gladwell

Understanding the true stories of success and how people have thrived. Malcolm Gladwell presents the idea of it taking 10,000 hours to master a skill. I loved the great anecdotes of how hard work and luck (family background, birthplace, or even birth date) can play equally into success.

Find it on Amazon >>

'The Tipping Point' by Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell explores the moment when a trend or idea reaches the magic “tipping point” when it spreads like wildfire.

Find it on Amazon >>

The Panama Canal, the narrow but essential shipping lane that has connected the Atlantic and Pacific for over a century, is undergoing a $5.25 billion expansion effort.

The project will allow for ships of 2 1/2 times the size of current restrictions to pass through the canal, loosening a long-standing bottleneck on international commerce.

It is an immense effort by any scale, requiring 5 million cubic meters of high-strength concrete — enough to build a highway from New York to St. Louis — and some very impressive engineering.

Unlike the current system, the new locks — scheduled to be completed this weekend — alongside the current, century-old ones, are designed to recycle more than 60% of the water used via a series of basins built alongside the channel.

Mike Newbery, a Vice President at MWH, the water-engineering firm responsible for the new design, told Business Insider that the project was filled with some serious challenges.

"I don't think I've ever come across a design specification where the concrete had to last for a hundred years," Newbery said. "Maybe nuclear." 

SEE ALSO: The new Panama Canal is opening soon and will cause an 'evolution' in a vital US industry

These are the old locks. For a century, they have restricted ships to 106 feet of width. Larger ships coming from Asia are forced to either sail their cargo around South America or to the West Coast, where it would be transported by rail.

The class of ships that can fit through the current canal is referred to as "Panamax." The width of "New Panamax" ships will now be expanded to 180 feet.

While not as visually exciting as the lock gates or water-saving system, finding the right concrete formula to withstand a century of seismic activity and corrosive salt water was a huge engineering hurdle, Newbery said.

Each year, one album taps into the hearts and ears of the public on its way to topping the Billboard year-end album chart.

Times have changed, though. In the 2010s, superstars like Adele and Taylor Swift have dominated the charts, while in the 1950s and early 1960s, musical soundtracks and Broadway cast recordings tended to top the list. 

Billboard has been tracking the top album of the year since 1956. From 1992 onward, total album sales were recorded by Nielsen SoundScan.

Before that, the top album chart was "based on a survey of representative retail outlets that determined a ranking" and was "not a tally of actual sales."

Business Insider compiled all the best-selling albums and their respective notable singles, dating back to 1956, so you can see, and hear, which album was the soundtrack to your birth year (so long as you're between the ages of 1 and 60).

Check out which album made it to the top of each year below:

SEE ALSO: The biggest hit song the year you were born

2015: Adele — "25"

Copies sold: 7,441,000

Notable singles:"Hello,""When We Were Young"

2014: Taylor Swift — "1989"

Copies sold: 3,661,000

Notable singles:"Shake It Off,""Blank Space,""Bad Blood"

2013: Justin Timberlake — "The 20/20 Experience"

Copies sold: 2,430,000

Notable singles:"Suit & Tie,""Mirrors"

After the historic decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union on Thursday, markets are reeling.

US stock indexes have erased all of their gains for 2016, and nearly every sector is in the red. Currencies are going wild and gold is soaring.

Some companies, however, have more to lose than others. Those US firms that sell a large amount of their products in the UK may have to reevaluate their business. In a time of uncertainty, for these firms the future is even more uncertain.

Using data from FactSet, we've compiled the US companies in the S&P 500 that generate the largest amount of their revenue from the UK.

Almost all of the firms tumbled in trading Friday, except Newmont Mining, which is riding on the back of the surge in gold prices.

Check out the firms with the most to lose following the Brexit below.

10. CBRE Group

Ticker: CBG

Industry: Real Estate Services

Percent of Revenue Generated in the UK: 17.6%

9. News Corp.

Ticker: NWSA

Industry: Newspaper Publishing

Percent of Revenue Generated in the UK: 18.5%

8. LKQ Corp.

Ticker: LKQ

Industry: Auto & Truck Parts Wholesale

Percent of Revenue Generated in the UK: 19.2%

The original "Super Mario Bros." is more than just the 32 or so levels you've played. The original "Super Mario Bros." actually has hundreds more levels. Hundreds!

Those levels, however, are messed up. They're broken, contain enemies that have no place within them (a Goomba underwater?!), and look completely bananas. They're the bastard children of Nintendo's most revered game, hidden away in the annals of each cartridge's aging chips. These are levels Nintendo never intended anyone to see, and the company's never really spoken about them as a result.

But guess what? Intrepid Nintendo enthusiasts have cracked a crazy secret process for unlocking these hidden levels.

Here's how to do it.

There's one well-known secret world in the original 'Super Mario Bros.' — it's called the 'Negative World.'

It's just one of many of the hidden levels contained in "Super Mario Bros.," and it's perhaps the most widely known. You can reach it by performing an awkward backwards jump in the game's second level, 1-2, like so:RAW Embed

It's so-named because of the '-1' seen in the 'World' area of the screen:

The level itself is just a standard underwater level, though it's impossible to progress beyond it. Exiting the level results in a loop.

RAW Embed

Creating a seven-figure business online was improbable 10 or even just five years ago, but as technology improves globally, there are more seven-figure earners than ever before.

The total number of millionaire households reached 9.6 million in 2013, but has topped 10.2 million already in 2015.

With the technology, resources, mentorship, research, and information available, it’s becoming easier than it has in the past. Sadly, most still won’t reach the seven-figure annual mark.

Why? Learning is not the problem for most people, and lack of information surely isn’t the problem, as there is more than ever before.

It’s the lack of real awareness and consistent study of the right information, mixed with inconsistent execution and implementation, that holds back most back.

You don’t just listen to something then remember it. You must put those ideas and strategies into consistent practice and repeat those actions until they are habitual and automatic. You must summarize the key ideas, sharpen your perspective, and then take more intelligent action.

There are a lot of reasons why most won’t reach seven figures, but here are the top five.

SEE ALSO: How much money you need to save each day to become a millionaire by age 65

1. Most focus on perfection, not experiments

Seeking perfection has lost me more than $100,000 the last couple years. By the time a millionaire has tried and tested eight different experiments without focusing on perfection, most people haven’t even gone to market yet. Maybe only two of their experiments worked and were deemed profitable. The point is they weren’t paralyzed by perfection, but were driven by testing.

Test all your crazy ideas. No matter how crazy they sound, try them out. Find out which ones work, and then optimize how effective they are. Test all variations of that idea. Find out which variation works best. Ideas are nothing until executed and proven.

Related: 4 Smart Money Habits to Help You Earn Your First Million Dollars

2. Few thoroughly think things through

"The more you sweat in peace the less you bleed in war"

One of the biggest missed opportunities for entrepreneurs is not preparing for, or predetermining, what they want. Truly productive people know the result they are after and maintain acute clarity on it.

Armed with this awareness, they reverse engineer this big goal into a series of small and actionable steps that they then put into a one- or two-page plan of execution.

Strategically thinking through your future will prevent mistakes, while increasing your ability to predict. When you’re intentional in all you do, you mitigate against risk and can make more educated decisions.

Plan your long-term strategies before you plan your tactics. Strategy shows where you plan on going, who you want to be, and what types of clients you want to attract. Tactics show how to get all of your strategy accomplished. You don't have a real strategy if it doesn't pass these two tests: What you're planning to do really matters to your existing and potential customers; and second, it differentiates you from your competition.

3. Most never learn intelligent delegation

Getting others to do something as well or better than yourself is one of the hardest aspects of leadership, but necessary if you're going to grow the business past the six-figure mark. Before you strategically delegate and build a team you must understand who you are, and what’s most important to you. Once you determine your most important values, put them into writing and operationalize them into company standards. Consistently systemize and internalize those values.

Your team must be value-based. If somebody can do something 80% as well as you, they should be doing it. When you delegate a task, make sure the person you’ve hired has clear and defined roles. Most entrepreneurs hire very fast, but fire very slow. It should be the opposite. Hire slow, fire fast.

Related: The Critical Lesson of Letting Bad Employees Go

Snapchat doesn't make it obvious when someone deletes or blocks you. It's one of the app's many quirks.

Luckily, there is a way to know for sure if someone is no longer following you back. And it's actually pretty easy to check.

SEE ALSO: How to use Kiwi, the hot app that beat out Snapchat for first place in the App Store

If you're wondering whether someone follows you back, tap and hold on their name to see their Snapcode — it's the yellow ghost icon that looks like this:

You can find someone's name by searching for them in the chat section of Snapchat or from your list of friends.

If you mutually follow each other, you'll see their Snapscore.

A person's Snapscore is the total sum of all snaps (photos and videos) they've sent and received in the app.

If they don't follow you, their Snapscore will be hidden.

Each year, The Chronicle of Philanthropy gathers data on charitable giving in corporate America.

The Chronicle, an organization dedicated to advising and reporting on nonprofits, determines its annual list of the most generous companies by ranking the largest Fortune 500 companies on the amount of total donations given — including both cash and product donations — for the fiscal year.

This year's corporate giving report reveals that America's largest companies increased cash donations by 2% in 2015, largely led by gifts from banks and drug companies. Pfizer and Gilead Sciences topped the list, with more than $3 billion and $2 billion, respectively, in total donations last year.

Though The Chronicle sought to include data for the 150 largest companies on the Fortune 500, two organizations — Berkshire Hathaway and Fannie Mae — said they do not make charitable grants, and an additional 81 companies either declined to provide data or did not respond to repeated requests.

Read on to find out which of America's largest corporations made the most philanthropic donations in 2015.

SEE ALSO: The 20 most generous people in the world

25. Mondelez International

Location: Northfield, Illinois

Pre-tax profits: $7.88 billion

Total donations: $70.8 million

Cash donations: $12.6 million

Product giving: $58.2 million

24. PNC Financial Services Group

Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Pre-tax profits: $5.51 billion

Total donations: $72 million

Cash donations: $72 million

Product giving: N/A

23. Verizon Communications

Location: New York, New York

Pre-tax profits: $28.24 billion

Total donations: $89.1 million

Cash donations: $56.4 million

Product giving: $32.7 million

In the real world, leaders come in many forms. The same is true in HBO's "Game of Thrones." Every major player has had their own style of doing things, from the Usurper to the Young Wolf to the Blackfish to the Queen of Thorns. 

However, in his book Primal Leadership, David Goleman (along with co-authors Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee) argues that people tend to fit into one of six key leadership styles. 

These are the "Game of Thrones" characters that best exemplify the best — and worst — of each style. Read through and consider what category you'd fit into if you were vying for power in Westeros and Essos. 

Warning: "Game of Thrones" spoilers ahead. 

SEE ALSO: We ranked the Game of Thrones characters by leadership skills — No. 1 may surprise you

The visionary leadership style — done right

The late Three-Eyed Raven was a good example of a visionary leader. According to Changing Minds, these leaders keep their followers guessing, "telling them them where to go but not how to get there — thus motivating them to struggle forwards." 

Some would say this mystical old tree/man (mandrake? Is that the term?) was a bit too vague, but we all know that the deaths of Hodor and Summer are on Bran. 

Before the Three-Eyed Raven was mowed down by White Walkers, he empowers his young protege with all sorts of new information that will likely be crucial in the wars and seasons to come. 

The visionary leadership style — done wrong

Visionary leaders aren't always successful.

Take King Tommen Baratheon, for instance. He's all about following his "dream"— that is, #MakeWesterosGreatAgain through strict adherence to the Faith of the Seven. 

Now that he's been totally cowed by the Faith Militant, he's seemingly bought into this vision and expects his court to follow suit.

While he believes in what he's doing, he's still not a good leader. Tommen's a weak idiot (and a seemingly neglectful cat owner — where is Ser Pounce in this whole mess?) and he's way out of his league right now.

All in all, he's proof that it's not always good to be the king.  

The coaching leadership style — done right

Tyrion Lannister's a total coaching leader. He's a good listener and a great counselor.

He can easily identify weakness in others and is great at delegation and teamwork. Coaching leaders work best with competent and motivated individuals, which Tyrion has found in Varys, Missandei, and Grey Worm.

Changing Minds reveals that the coaching style of leadership is "best used when individuals need to build long-term capabilities."

So, despite that small hiccup where the Masters ended up attacking Meereen, Tyrion's in the right place. Especially considering the fact that Dany's ultimate goal involves retaking the Iron Throne. That'll require some long-term capabilities, indeed. 

The last episode of "Game of Thrones" season six airs Sunday, and we are hyped.

As we prepare for more gore and drama, we've compiled the 12 most popular "Game of Thrones" phrases from the original book series, "A Song of Ice and Fire."

To collect the data, IBM researcher Vinith Misra fed IBM's Watson all five books in the series — totaling over 5,000 pages. Then Watson analyzed the text to determine which phrases are used the most.

The word limit was capped at seven, so at times we fleshed out the full quote for clarity.

Scroll down to see which phrases are repeated the most.

12. "Queen of the Andals, and the Rhoynar and the First Men."

Daynerys has, erm, quite a few titles. But apparently this one comes up more than the others in the book series. By the end of the fifth novel, "A Dance With Dragons," this is her full title:

Daenerys Stormborn, the Unburnt, Queen of Meereen, Queen of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Khaleesi of Great Grass Sea, Breaker of Shackles and Mother of Dragons.

11. "She's been f—ing Lancel and Osmund Kettleblack..."

...and probably Moon Boy for all I know!"

This line won't make much sense to show-only fans, but in the book series it's a cutting revelation Jaime Lannister repeats in his head over and over.

When Jaime frees Tyrion from his cell, the two wind up having a falling out before parting ways. Knowing it will hurt Jaime, Tyrion decides to reveal to his older brother that Cersei has been unfaithful. She slept with her cousin Lancel, and a character named Osmund Kettleblack. Moon Boy is a court jester in King's Landing, so Tyrion throws him in the mix just for fun. 

10. "I am the fire that burns against the cold."

Watson picked up on the fact that the solemn Night's Watch vows are repeated often throughout the series. Here's the full speech:

Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death.
I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children.
I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.
I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls.
I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.
I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

Let's face it: When it comes to sunscreen, putting it on can sometimes feel like a chore.

But even after years of lathering up before heading out to the pool or the park, many of us are still left with some questions about how sunscreen works, as well as some skepticism about some of the myths we've been hearing for years about skin protection.

So we turned to Dr. Melissa Piliang, a dermatologist at the Cleveland Clinic, to ask all of our silly and slightly embarrassing questions about how sunscreen does (and doesn't) work.

SEE ALSO: 14 of your most embarrassing questions about wine answered with science

DON'T MISS: The definitive, scientific answers to 20 health questions everyone has

What the heck does SPF actually mean?

Sure, the acronym itself stands for sunburn protection factor, but what does that actually mean? 

"If you burn after 10 minutes of sun exposure, and you put on SPF 30, then that should give you 300 minutes of sun protection," Piliang said. That is, assuming you're applying enough and reapplying every two hours. 

How can you tell how long it will take you to burn?

There are a number of factors that go into how long it takes for your skin to burn, all of which change pretty constantly. These include your skin tone, the time of day, what time of year it is, how close you are to the sun, and more.

So if you're trying to calculate, say, SPF 30 times the 10 minutes to burn to get 100 minutes of sun protection, you might want to just make some conservative estimates and play it safe. 

Does SPF matter once you go above a certain threshold?

The difference between SPF 15, 30, and 50 isn't as linear as you might expect. SPF 15 blocks out 93% of UVB rays, while bumping up to 30 gives you 97% protection (not necessarily double). Going up to 50 boosts you up to 98% protection. And, once you get past that point, it's only going to give you incrementally better protection.

"Some people worry that we're giving people a false sense of security by using those really high numbers, and maybe the additional protection is not enough, or makes them stay out longer," Piliang said. 

"Game of Thrones" fans give the show a lot of leeway when it comes to what it holds back and what it reveals.

But with one more episode left for the season, and then another nine-month wait until the seventh season after that, we need several of our questions answered this weekend.

We know that the show's end is about 10 to 15 hours of TV away after this Sunday. That means we're looking at a full seventh season coming up followed by a short eighth season or two short seasons. So things are going to begin resolving pretty quickly.

But for now, let's keep our focus on what we want to know for the episode ahead. 

Here are nine burning questions that need to be answered on the season finale:

SEE ALSO: How 'Game of Thrones' will be affected by Brexit

DON'T MISS: The 33 most shocking deaths on 'Game of Thrones' so far

What's Arya's next move?

Arya (Maisie Williams) thankfully ended her run with the Many-Faced God and his subjects by declaring, "A girl is Arya Stark of Winterfell, and I'm going home." But does that really mean she's on her way to Winterfell?

That wouldn't be a bad option as Winterfell is under the control of her half-brother Jon Snow (Kit Harington) and sister Sansa Stark (Sophie Turner). But does she even know that?

If she felt that Winterfell wouldn't be a welcome place quite yet, she may go about trying to make it welcome. Is it possible she'll try to cross more names off her revenge list?

How will Cersei's trial end?

If the trial of Cersei (Lena Headey) ends with a guilty verdict, she won't go to her death quietly. There was a moment a couple episodes back when Qyburn (Anton Lesser) told Cersei that his spies had been looking into a rumor she was interested in and found it to be more than just a rumor. Since then, there have been a lot of references to the Mad King's plan to burn down King's Landing if he felt he would lose it to someone else. Could that be on Cersei's mind?

What is Jaime's next move?

Okay, Jaime (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has recaptured Riverrun. He's heading over to celebrate with the Freys. But the love of his life and his sister, Cersei (Lena Headey), is about to go to trial. He has been ordered to shore up the king's relationships, but isn't he needed back at King's Landing?