• Before he was a multimillionaire Star Wars star, John Boyega was nearly broke—spending $43 of his last $60 to meet J.J. Abrams for dinner and then acting like he had other offers waiting. Playing hard to get is a move usually seen in dating, but in this case, it helped him land the breakout role of rogue Stormtrooper Finn.

Before John Boyega became a household name as rogue Stormtrooper Finn in Star Wars, he was a struggling actor with just £45 [$60] to his name when the director J.J. Abrams invited the 33-year-old actor to dinner.

At the time Boyega barely had enough to cover his travel to meet with Abrams, let alone cover his half of dinner. But the British actor was so hopeful for a big break that he emptied the little left in his bank account to drop everything and trek across London—and now, during a panel at Chicago’s Comic & Entertainment Expo, he said he will “never forget the day.”

“He goes, ‘Where are you?’ And I said, ‘I’m at this art show in Greenwich, mate. I’m very, very busy. Where are you?’ He goes, ‘Well, I’m in Mayfair and [at a] restaurant. Need to talk to you now. And we’ll talk about something important,’” Boyega recalled the exchange with J.J. Abrams, following several rounds of auditions.

“And I go, ‘Okay, okay, I’m gonna be right there’… It took £33 and 83p to get to J.J. Do the math.”

After paying for his fare, Boyega arrived with less than £12 [$15] in his account and everything to gain. If nothing else, he thought, at least the meal would be free.

“Each step I took, I was nervous,” he continued. “I was like, ‘Okay, cool.’ You know, J.J. is a phenomenal, nice guy, and if he was to tell me I didn’t get the part, he would still feed me.”

Boyega played hard to get—and it worked

Before landing the role, Boyega already had a decade of experience, starring in movies like The Whale, Imperial Dreams, and Half of a Yellow Sun. But work had since dried up. Roles weren’t rolling in, but Boyega didn’t want Abrams to know that. After all, the legendary action director—behind box-office hits like Star Trek, Super 8, and Mission Impossible—had the potential to launch the young actor into stardom. 

So he took a page out of the old dating playbook: acting unavailable just enough to pique interest.

“I had been auditioning for so long, so I felt like he kind of took away my dignity a little bit. So I decided to pretend as if I was busy,” Boyega said—and Abrams bought it. 

“Everything felt very surreal,” he remembered. “And then this just puts the Star Wars stamp on it: [The movie’s cowriter Lawrence Kasdan] walks out and he said, ‘Kid, this movie’s gonna change your life.’ And that’s the Hollywood s—.”

Within a span of hours, Boyega went from financial uncertainty to a golden paycheck from Lucasfilm. 

It’s estimated that the actor earned between $100,000 and $300,000 for his role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens in 2015—which grossed more than $2 billion at box offices around the world. He also went on to reprise the role in Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker in 2017 and 2019, which both raked in billion-dollar theater earnings. That discussion with Abrams in the Mayfair restaurant was the first glimmer of his career to come.

Boyega’s career advice for the next generation 

While adopting a “fake it, till you make it” mindset worked out in the end for Boyega, he advises Gen Z to go into their dream job with their eyes wide open—including studying how predecessors in similar backgrounds have found success in that field.

“It’s important to understand the type of industry you’re joining, the opportunity that is available, and the different ways in which you can enter and be a part of something,” Boyega told Backstage in a 2020 podcast episode.  

The Star Wars alumni also said young people should carefully watch how people like them are treated once they get through the door. Boyega himself has been open about his dissatisfaction with Black character portrayals—including his own—in the Lucasfilm franchise.

“Train hard, be a fan of what you love, study other people who have struggled the same way you have,” Boyega added. “It’s all about just calibrating and trying to find what specifically motivates you. Your freedom in that is knowing that there are no rules that could limit you as a creative.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

An estimated 1 in 31 U.S. children have autism, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday, marking another jump in a long string of increases.

The CDC’s data was from 14 states and Puerto Rico in 2022. The previous estimate — from 2020 — was 1 in 36.

Boys continue to be diagnosed more than girls, and the highest rates are among children who are Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native and Black.

To estimate how common autism is, the CDC checked health and school records for 8-year-olds, because most cases are diagnosed by that age. Other researchers have their own estimates, but experts say the CDC’s estimate is the most rigorous and the gold standard.

Here’s what you need to know about the new numbers, as well as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan to do a “massive testing and research effort” around autism.

What is autism?

Autism is a developmental disability caused by differences in the brain. There are many possible symptoms, many of which overlap with other diagnoses. They can include delays in language and learning, social and emotional withdrawal and an unusual need for routine.

For decades, the diagnosis was rare, given only to kids with severe problems communicating or socializing and those with unusual, repetitive behaviors.

As late as the early 1990s, only 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism. Around that time, the term became a shorthand for a group of milder, related conditions known as ″autism spectrum disorders,” and the number of kids labeled as having some form of autism began to balloon.

In the first decade of this century, the estimate rose to 1 in 150. In 2018, it was 1 in 44. In 2020, it was up to 1 in 36.

Why are autism numbers rising?

Health officials largely attribute growing autism numbers to better recognition of cases through wide screening and better diagnosis.

There are no blood or biologic tests for autism. It’s diagnosed by making judgments about a child’s behavior, and there’s been an explosion in autism-related treatment and services for children.

Roughly two decades ago, studies by the CDC and others ruled out childhood vaccines as a cause of autism. Since then, a lot of research has looked at variety of other possible explanations, including genetics, the age of the father, the weight of the mother and whether she had diabetes and exposure to certain chemicals.

Some researchers have theorized it may be a series of things — perhaps a biological predisposition set off by some sort of toxic exposure.

Vaccines and autism

Kennedy and anti-vaccine advocates have remained fixated on childhood vaccines, pointing at a preservative called thimerosal that is no longer in most childhood vaccines or theorizing that autism may be the cumulative effect of multiple vaccinations. A number of studies, including some with CDC authors, have not found such links.

Last week, Kennedy said HHS was launching “a massive testing and research effort that’s going to involve hundreds of scientists from around the world” and identify what causes autism in less than six months. He also promised “we’ll be able to eliminate those exposures.”

Kennedy and President Donald Trump both referred to the 1-in-31 estimate that CDC released Tuesday during last week’s White House meeting, and Kennedy also repeated the statistic at a meeting with FDA officials on Friday,

Kennedy’s statement followed reports that he had hired David Geier, a man who has repeatedly claimed a link between vaccines and autism, to lead the autism research effort. The hiring of Geier, whom Maryland found was practicing medicine on a child without a doctor’s license, was first reported by The Washington Post.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• Given the destiny-determining questions that are plaguing the U.S. economy, United Airlines is planning for multiple operating environments, the company announced on Tuesday. In one scenario, the airline sees consistent customer bookings even as the economy weakens. In the other, the U.S. stumbles headlong into a recession. It may be an approach other companies adopt given the wild swings roiling the markets. 

United Airlines is giving you options. 

The $22 billion airline on Tuesday offered up what it called a “bimodal” set of expectations with its guidance benchmark based on two very different macroeconomic views because “a single consensus no longer exists,” United told investors. 

“Either the U.S. economy will remain weaker but stable, or the U.S. may enter into a recession,” United announced. 

In the recessionary scenario, the company modeled a five percentage point reduction in total operating revenue from the second to the fourth quarters, which it says would equate to $4.50 in adjusted diluted earnings per share (EPS) if there was no break from fuel prices. The revenue reduction would mean significantly lower full year adjusted diluted EPS of $7 to $9. 

On the other hand, the stable scenario is a lot rosier with higher full year EPS of $11.50 to $13.50. United said it is monitoring its bookings like a hawk, and so far trends have been stable. If things continue apace, the company expects to be within its initial guidance range of $11.50 to $13.50. United CEO Scott Kirby and chief financial officer Michael Leskinen will discuss the business outlook with investors during its quarterly earnings call on Wednesday. 

This tactic was a novel one for market watchers. 

In a post on X, economist and former Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian said the move by United illustrates the uncertainty a lot of companies feel at the moment. 

“In addition to uncertainty, this highlights the importance for companies (and others) to think in terms of multiple scenarios for internal planning and not just stick to the usual normal distribution (i.e., a highly likely outcome and thin tails),” the president of Queens’ College, Cambridge wrote. 

The market has been on a will-he, won’t-he roller coaster ride since President Trump announced a bevy of new import duties on Liberation Day earlier this month. The announcement, which was expected, triggered an extreme market selloff because the scale and scope of Trump’s announced tariffs was beyond what had already been priced in. 

The subsequent weeks have been chaotic and riddled with commentary from experts about what might happen next, even as new developments continue to confound the markets on a near-hourly basis. 

Former Federal Reserve chair and secretary of the U.S. Treasury Janet Yellen said the U.S. “would be lucky to skirt a recession.” 

Billionaire Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio said the combination of Trump’s tariffs, rising debt, and geopolitical forces could crumble the U.S “monetary order.”

“Right now, we are at a decision-making point and very close to a recession. I’m worried about something worse than a recession if this isn’t handled well,” Dalio said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

“A recession is two negative quarters of GDO and whether it goes there? We always have those things. We have something that’s much more profound, we have a breaking down of the monetary order—we are going to change the monetary order because we cannot send the amounts of money.”

Despite the uncertainty on the horizon ahead, United reported a first-quarter profit and record revenues of $13.2 billion, the company announced on Tuesday, ahead of its scheduled quarterly briefing with investors. Travel reservations have stayed steady, according to United, with premium cabins up 17% and international flights up 5% year-over-year. 

“United believes our proven ability to win brand-loyal customers is a competitive advantage and will make United resilient in any economic environment,” the company told investors.  

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com