The aviation obsession began early. After watching Top Gun as a child, David Ellison became fixated on flying. His billionaire father, Larry Ellison, purchased a plane for him at age 13, and they took lessons together. By 16, he was flying a high-performance German aerobatic aircraft capable of rolling 360 degrees in under a second. Wayne Handley, a pilot who worked with the family, told Variety that to “pry this airplane out of David’s hands, Larry bought him a top-of-the-line aerobatic airplane out of Germany, the Extra 300.”​

David Ellison soloed on his 16th birthday and began competing in airshows at 17. In 2003, at 20, he became the youngest member of the Stars of Tomorrow aerobatic team at the EAA AirVenture Show in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. He flew a Cap 232 painted in full Flyboys regalia to promote the 2006 film.

“I started flying aerobatics when I was 14,” he told Smithsonian Air & Space magazine. “I flew a bunch of airshows, a competition in an Unlimited, and I flew at Nationals.”​

The pivot to entertainment emerged gradually. It was while studying film at the University of Southern California that Ellison appeared in Flyboys, playing an American pilot fighting for the French in the World War I drama. The film cost $65 million but earned only $18 million, marking a brief acting career. ​

Ellison abandoned competitive flying and acting at the same time, dropping out of USC to focus on production. In 2006, he founded Skydance Media with financial backing from his billionaire father. The company’s name reflects Ellison’s passion for stunt flying, also known as “skydancing.”​

Skydance’s first major success came with the Coen brothers’ True Grit in 2011, which grossed over $250 million worldwide on a $38 million budget. This launched a partnership with Paramount that produced five Mission: Impossible films grossing $3.3 billion globally, two Star Trek movies, and the record-breaking Top Gun: Maverick, which is the 14th highest-grossing film of all time.​

The Paramount merger, approved by federal regulators in August, culminates Ellison’s transformation from daredevil to mogul. Now 42, David is the chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance, overseeing CBS, MTV, and Paramount Pictures. The deal faced obstacles including competing bids and political pressure from President Donald Trump, who extracted a multimillion-dollar settlement from Paramount over a 60 Minutes lawsuit.​

Ellison’s strategy centers on technology integration. He plans to create a “studio in the cloud” with Oracle’s infrastructure, using AI to streamline production and reduce costs. The company will double theatrical releases while modernizing Paramount+’s streaming algorithms to minimize subscriber cancellations.​

But Ellison still has that flyboy DNA: He has his pilot’s license to operate helicopters, perform aerobatics, and fly commercial and multi-engine aircraft. Now, the daredevil who once thrilled Oshkosh crowds is navigating a different kind of turbulence—a 113-year-old studio in an industry being reshaped by streaming giants and tech conglomerates.

​For this story, Fortune journalists used generative AI as a research tool. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

“If this is their nightmare, [the] candidate freezes up or even gets offended,” Biyani added it highlights straight away that they are “not a fit” for the company. “If this is exciting, they are more likely to join.”

The California-based chief revealed that he typically reserves the test for applicants that he wants to move forward with. But sometimes, Biyani admitted he’ll even throw the feedback test to candidates he liked who aren’t the perfect fit for the role.

And there’s no right or wrong answer per se—he’s even happy for candidates to scrap what they said moments earlier and pivot based on the critique: “No matter what, we expect the candidate to take the feedback in real-time and change their answers from then on out.” 

Mixed reactions to the interview tactic: ‘If your company doesn’t care about psychological safety, run this test’

The interview tactic has drawn a mixed response. Some commented that they “love it” and that it’s a great way to gauge a candidate’s ability to receive criticism and whether that can thrive under transparent communications. Many others were not so sure. 

“Publicly critiquing someone in a high-stakes, power-imbalance situation like this isn’t a test of ‘coachability.’ It’s a test of who is willing to suppress their nervous system response to humiliation, stress, and social threat in exchange for a job,” the most-liked response read. “Freezing, discomfort, or offense in that context isn’t fragility, it’s biology…. And filtering people out based on how well they override that isn’t selecting for resilience or a growth mindset. It’s selecting for compliance under pressure.”

Others highlighted that a candidate’s reaction in a high-stakes interview setting could be very different from day-to-day in the role, that some need time to sleep on feedback before responding, that it’s a “dehumanising” approach that would raise HR’s eyebrows, and ultimately could result in losing talent.

Career coach Kyle Elliott, EdD, echoed that “in 10 years of coaching more than 1,000 clients, no one has ever reported facing this type of situation.”

While feedback is perfectly normal, he said that the fact that it’s one-sided, based on a single interview without any prior rapport, with a job offer hinging on the response makes it problematic—and is unlikely to actually help test a candidate’s ability to do the job they’ve applied for. “This just reads like an insensitive science experiment.”

“If your company doesn’t care about psychological safety, likes to put people on the spot, and triggers trauma responses, I suppose you could run this test, Elliott added. “Otherwise, your interview process should mirror the candidate’s day-to-day work environment to get the best talent possible.”

How to handle live feedback in an interview

Live feedback is uncommon, but as Lewis Maleh, CEO of the global executive recruitment agency Bentley Lewis, warned, it is growing in popularity.

“We are seeing more companies experiment with stress testing candidates in various ways to assess how they perform under pressure,” he told Fortune. “I’ve heard of some tech CEOs and startup founders doing similar things, particularly in high-pressure roles where quick thinking and resilience are critical. But it’s definitely not mainstream practice.”

Maleh sees the logic. “If you’re hiring for a role where receiving feedback, adapting quickly, and performing under pressure are essential, testing those skills in real time makes sense,” he said. But “it absolutely can be cruel depending on how it’s executed.” Public critiques can intimidate even brilliant candidates, potentially ruling out top talent who simply don’t thrive in that scenario.

Either way, with tech companies often setting the pace for unconventional hiring and retention practices, similar tests could become more common across other sectors.

Maleh’s advice to candidates? Practice receiving feedback in real time. 

“Ask friends or mentors to critique your work or ideas on the spot and practice responding thoughtfully rather than defensively,” he added. “You can also use your favourite LLM chat (ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok) and ask it to “act as a very harsh interviewer” to give you practice.” 

“Focus on staying calm, asking clarifying questions, and showing you can incorporate feedback quickly.”

But don’t forget that interviews are a two-way street: “Remember that if a company’s interview process feels excessively harsh or performative, that might tell you something about their culture too.”

“The most important aspect of the Fed’s communication on Wednesday is going to be whether Powell characterizes policy as ‘in a good place’, as he did for the first several months of 2025 when the Fed was on hold, or if he repeats his description of policy being ‘modestly restrictive’ or ‘somewhat above neutral’. In the case of the latter, the door will remain open to further cuts in early 2026,” they told clients in a note seen by Fortune. “We do not expect that he will say policy rates are ‘in a good place’, but that will be the phrase to watch out for.” 

The context, of course, is that Powell is famously guided by the data. No matter what he says tomorrow, his decision in January will be based on incoming macroeconomic information between then and now.

And it’s not just Powell’s decision. He presides over an FOMC that is almost evenly divided against itself. Roughly half its members are wary of creating further new rounds of cheaper money that may be inflating a bubble in the stock market. The other half sees an economy on the verge of faltering, with rising unemployment, that needs easier money to avoid recession.

At the last Fed meeting, “there was a sharp division beneath the surface” of the FOMC, according to Macquarie’s David Doyle and Chinara Azizova. “Eight of 19 participants saw the policy rate in the 3.5 to 3.75% range [below where it is now at 3.75%]. This division is likely to remain apparent in the December update.”

“Given the likelihood for dissents, the growing differences in forward-looking policy projections are likely to be addressed. The chair is likely to emphasize that this is to be expected when the dual mandate is in tension due to rising unemployment and still elevated inflation,” they said.

Unemployment is trending upward, as shown in this chart from Macquarie:

At Goldman Sachs, chief U.S. economist David Mericle is also looking for signs of dissent. “There will most likely be two hawkish dissents in the statement, and we expect five participants to register soft dissents,” he told clients. “But we are not sure that all of this would add up to meaningful new information for the market.” 

Those dissents will hinge on how Fed members feel about the employment market, which seems to be weakening by the day. 

“It is not realistic to expect the FOMC to box itself in too much by signaling a very strong bias toward a pause in January because if the labor market is still actively softening at that point, a cut might be appropriate. In fact, participants will be even more uncertain than usual about what will be appropriate at the next meeting because we are now two employment reports behind schedule,” Mericle told clients.

Goldman estimates that U.S. job growth is below the “breakeven” rate vs job cuts:

Those missing employment reports—cancelled by the U.S. government shutdown—will leave the Fed more dependent than usual on anecdotal or imperfect private employment data. The Fed’s “beige book,” a periodic summary of quotes from American businesses, shows that employers are increasingly not creating new jobs. 

“Last week’s Beige Book suggested that labor demand is weakening via less hiring rather than layoffs – a fragile equilibrium in the labor market that will keep the Fed in a risk management mindset,” Oxford Economics analyst Michael Pearce.

Private employer data is equally gloomy, according to Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank in Dallas. ADP, Revelio Labs, and Challenger, Gray, & Christmas—three companies that compile private market jobs data—all saw payrolls falling in the last few months, he told Fortune. “Challenger, Gray, & Christmas reported employers announced plans for 71,000 job cuts in November, up 24% from the same month last year. They cited restructuring, market and economic conditions, and artificial intelligence as key reasons for layoff announcements,” he said. 

If the labor market continues to deteriorate, then it becomes less likely that Powell will say interest rates are “in a good place” and more likely that the Fed will deliver future cuts in 2026.

Here’s a snapshot of the markets ahead of the opening bell in New York this morning:

• S&P 500 futures were flat this morning. The last session closed down 0.35%. 
• STOXX Europe 600 were flat in early trading. 
• The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was flat in early trading. 
• Japan’s Nikkei 225 was up 0.14%. 
• China’s CSI 300 was down 0.51%.
• The South Korea KOSPI was down 0.27%.
• India’s NIFTY 50 was down 0.47%. 
• Bitcoin slid to $90K.