Lionel Messi is now a blonde

Athletes changing their image is a commonplace thing in the world of sports. Sometimes they just want to have a fresh start, as FC Barcelona superstar Lionel Messi has shown with his new BLEACH BLONDE HAIR.

Here is a photo posted to Instagram by his hair stylist.

Simply put, the jury's out on this one. Some people like it, some people hate it. But really, this is kind of like Messi pushing the "reset" button. To summarize he has:

• Watched his rival Cristiano Ronaldo win the Champions League
• Hurt his back
• Lost his third consecutive (and fourth overall) major tournament final as the captain of the Argentinian National team — and then watched Cristiano Ronaldo win the European Championship for Portugal
• Was convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to 21 months in jail (he won't serve the sentence because Spanish law allows sentences under two years to not be served in prison)

Messi's had a rough summer. Let him live a little with his new 'do.

I followed Jack Dorsey's morning routine for a week and was surprised by the difference it made in my day

As CEO of both Twitter and Square, 18-hour days are regular occurrences for Jack Dorsey.

According to a 2015 Product Hunt Q&A, Dorsey keeps balanced by following a uniform schedule.

"I look to build a lot of consistent routine," he said. "Same thing every day."

Dorsey said in the Q&A that this routine enables him to maintain a state that allows him to be effective when he has to deal with situations that get out of hand.

One of these "consistent routines" is his morning ritual, which, he told Product Hunt, consists of waking up at 5 a.m., meditating for 30 minutes, and a doing a seven-minute workout three times — all before getting his caffeine fix. Dorsey reportedly ends his day at 11 p.m.

Jack Dorsey is a successful guy, so he must be doing something right. If it's his daily routine that makes the difference, I was going to find out. I followed his routine for an entire work week, from Monday to Friday, to see what it did for my energy levels, mood, and productivity.

8 reasons living in a city is terrible for you

Over half the world's population lives in cities — and that share of the population is growing. With more people come more traffic, pollution, and noise, all of which take a toll on our health and well-being.

Here are different ways living in a city is a terrible decision.

Malcolm Gladwell tells us about his beef with billionaires, police violence, and how his new hit podcast lets him explores issues in ways his books can't

Malcolm Gladwell is angry, and he wants you to know why.

That's not to say that the bestselling author walks around in a rage all day — he's actually quite collected and soft-spoken most of the time, and ready to make a joke. But in his new hit podcast "Revisionist History," he explores certain topics in a way that readers of his books "The Tipping Point" and "Outliers" may find surprising.

Take, for example, the way he devotes three episodes to ways he considers the United States' education system is failing low-income students. To him, it's a subject worthy of nothing less than moral outrage.

We recently sat down with Gladwell to discuss what he wants to achieve with his podcast — which he confirmed has been approved for a second season — and how his worldview has evolved since the massive success of "The Tipping Point" launched him into pop culture 16 years ago.

We also discussed two of the biggest stories in America today, the presidential election and the public's relationship with the police.

When he got mad about a perceived injustice he was talking about, he'd raise his voice and throw up his hands, but often before cracking a smile, enjoying the energy of the discussion.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Richard Feloni: With "Revisionist History," what are you finding that you can do with the podcast medium that you can't do with a book?

Malcolm Gladwell: There's an immediacy to it. I went on my Twitter this morning. The latest episode dropped last night at midnight and by 7:30 a.m. this morning there's already a long stream of people commenting on it on Twitter. That's very different from a book, which takes a long time to kind of gain traction.

Also, there's more freedom in the medium, more freedom to use emotion, to be outraged. A lot of these episodes are angry — or even funny — in a way that my books are rarely. My podcast unleashes my id.

Feloni: There are recurring topics that you keep coming back to in your career and that you have really strong feelings about. How do you pick your battles?

Gladwell: When it comes to battle picking, you ask yourself two questions: What is something that not enough people are talking about, and what is something that I believe I have something unique to say about?

test

So the battles I've chosen are not the most important ones facing humanity. There are lots of issues more important than where billionaires donate their money, to use the example I discuss in the latest episode of the podcast. But I do think it's something we don't talk about enough, and I think that after 15 years of writing books and 20 years at The New Yorker, I now have a kind of platform that allows me to be heard when I sound off on these subjects. And I think it would be a crime not to use that platform.

And I think as a Canadian I do have something unique to say about America's educational system, which to an outsider is completely absurd. I mean, it's so nuts, that you kind of have to be from a different place to sort of speak to its inherent absurdity.

So I chose to dedicate three episodes of "Revisionist History" to what's wrong with the American educational system because it fits my two criteria for battles.

I like to go back and forth between my tried and true hobby horses and new things. I don't want to be like the angry old guy in the corner who is always ranting and raving about the same things — but I don't mind doing that just a little bit!

Feloni: You reach conclusions in your work in a way that prompts your audience to either do something or see the world in a different light. Do you find that always shaping these theses affects how you live your own life?

Gladwell: Since becoming a journalist, each time I engage with subjects I become more radicalized.

If you met me as a 21 year old, I was actually conservative. And I would describe my politics back then as quite complacent. I am now substantially to the left of my 21-year-old self. But it's not so much about political positioning as it is that I'm now substantially more outspoken than I was back then.

Writing about these various things has made me a little bit angrier, and it's certainly fueled my passion about things.

Feloni: Can you give me an instance where a certain topic has made you angrier?

Gladwell: I did a piece for The New Yorker in 2009 about concussions in football, and I am a serious football fan. I had watched football for 25 years without ever entertaining the notion that I was morally complicit in what the game was doing to people. And then I wrote that article, which made me think about, "Well, wait a minute. What does it mean for me to sit and watch and give my implicit consent to the economic enterprise that is football when the game itself is harming a huge number of its participants?" That's a very uncomfortable thought. It's not a thought that sports fans normally have to ask themselves.

I continue to watch football but now I'm conflicted about it! I think I am in the process of divorcing myself from the game. It's hard because I'm a serious fan. But every year I watch less and every year I feel guiltier about the football that I do watch, and the delight I take in people harming themselves. It's just crazy.

There are a million other sports you can watch that do not involve the physical destruction of the participants, right? I actually find myself watching a lot more basketball and a lot less football. So I am finding more productive outlets for my sports fanaticism.

That's a small example. But also, I give money to things that I think are worthy causes, and my definition of a worthy cause has been profoundly shaped by a lot of my writing.

Feloni: There's a section in your book "David and Goliath" where you mention that your views on affirmative action have evolved since you first publicly explored them in "Blink" eight years earlier. What's an idea commonly associated with you that your readers may be surprised to hear you no longer believe in?

Gladwell: In "Tipping Point," there's a chapter trying to explain the fall of crime in New York City. I talk quite positively about the broken windows theory [which states that cracking down on small crimes prevents larger crimes]. And that was written at a time, the late 1990s, where that idea was very much en vogue. I think that it had a place in New York's transformation, but I do think that in New York, and other places as well, that idea was taken too far. It led to a kind of punitive policing, which I think has clearly become a big problem.

By "David and Goliath," published three years ago, I was talking about the opposite, about a woman in the NYPD who has had extraordinary results in reducing juvenile crime rates in Brownsville, Brooklyn by reaching out to the community, building relationships with the families of young offenders, and winning them over.

That's a case where my views have evolved substantially, and I hope that people don't take that chapter in "The Tipping Point" too seriously, because I just don't think it's relevant to 2016.

Feloni: I would assume that these ideas about the relationship between authority and the people it is intended to protect has been front of mind when we have a week of violence in Minneapolis, Baton Rouge, and Dallas.

Gladwell: A theme of "David and Goliath" is this idea of legitimacy, that civil societies work when the citizenry perceives their governing institutions to be legitimate, and that is based on three principles: fairness — that everyone is treated the same; transparency — that you know exactly what the consequences of certain actions are; and responsiveness — when you feel that you can stand up and complain and that you will be heard.

What the police do doesn't work unless the population believes in what the police are doing and believes in the legitimacy of the institution of the police force.

So the first task of a police force is not to fight crime and enforce the law. It is to establish legitimacy with the law-abiding citizenry and then fight crime and enforce the law. I think that's the issue.

When we look at the events in Ferguson and those that follow, the sad fact is that in many places in this country, the police have lost their legitimacy. They're no longer perceived to be transparent, predictable, open, and listening to the population, particularly in the African-American community.

At the same time, I think it's important to understand that we are talking about a small percentage of the police in this country and the populations in this country. By and large I think the policing of this country is done in a really good way. I think that we have a lot to be proud of, but I think we've gone awry a bit in the last couple of years.

The militarization of police, and the particular defensiveness of the police has led to these really troubling incidents and I don't think it's a trivial issue. I think that restoring the legitimacy of law enforcement has got to be one of the single most important tasks facing the country.

Feloni: From what you've seen and researchers you've spoken with, what are some things you think could be done to restore legitimacy?

Gladwell: One of the things I think the police have to do is to stop behaving like armies. There's a really brilliant writer named Radley Balkowho's been writing a lot about this.

FBI says it will investigate DNC hack

The Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Monday that it was investigating the nature and scope of a cyber intrusion at the Democratic National Committee disclosed last month.

"A compromise of this nature is something we take very seriously, and the FBI will continue to investigate and hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace," the FBI said in a statement.

The hack, which has been linked to Russian groups, led to the publication of thousands of internal DNC emails. The leak revealed that several key members of the organization had unfavorable attitudes towards the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned Sunday over her role in the incident, effective after the Democratic National Convention concludes later this week. 

Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager, has suggested that the Russians behind the hack were working to promote Donald Trump's candidacy by undermining the Democratic Party. Trump has expressed positive views toward Russia and President Vladimir Putin multiple times throughout his campaign. 

THE SILICON VALLEY 100: From A to Z

There's a misconception that Silicon Valley is all about creating frivolous apps and getting paid buckets of money to do it while working in a frat house. Some of the brogrammer culture does exist in pockets, but it doesn't define the cradle of innovation where thousands work and create in Silicon Valley.

Instead, after months of research and debate, Business Insider is proud to present the Silicon Valley 100, our annual list of the people who matter most and define what it means to be in Silicon Valley.

This isn't another who's who list based on long-standing reputation; rather it is a look at who made a difference in the past year. These are the star executives breaking new ground at companies, the venture capitalists who did more than make big bets on the future, and the companies that want to change industries and your life.

Here is the list of the Silicon Valley 100 of 2016, from A to Z: 

Angela Ahrendts of Apple (No. 68)

Sam Altman of Y Combinator (No. 18)

Adam Bain of Twitter (No. 38)

Manny Bamfo of Recharge (No. 96)

Marc Benioff of Salesforce (No. 8)

Nathan Blecharczyk, Brian Chesky, and Joe Gebbia of Airbnb (No. 28)

Keith Block of Salesforce (No. 31)

David Boies of Theranos (No. 100)

Patrick Brown of Impossible Foods (No. 55)

Stacy Brown-Philpot of TaskRabbit (No. 86)

Diane Bryant of Intel (No. 32)

Stewart Butterfield of Slack (No. 19)

Mike Cagney, Dan Macklin, Ian Brady, and James Finnigan of SoFi (No. 35)

Garrett Camp of Uber, StumbleUpon, and Expa (No. 44)

Sukhinder Singh Cassidy of JOYUS and theBoardlist (No. 75)

Safra Catz, Larry Ellison, and Mark Hurd of Oracle (No. 82)

Greg Clark of Blue Coat (No. 37)

John and Patrick Collison of Stripe (No. 33)

Tim Cook of Apple (No. 7)

Dick Costolo of Chorus and Index Ventures (No. 66)

Chris Cox of Facebook (No. 47)

Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine of Apple (No. 42)

Scott Dietzen of Pure Storage (No. 71)

Chris Dixon of Andreessen Horowitz (No. 45)

Jack Dorsey of Twitter and Square (No. 6)

Andrew Dreskin of Ticketfly (No. 40)

David Drummond of Alphabet (No. 98)

Regina Dugan of Facebook (No. 29)

Scott Dylla, Daniel Reiner, and Brian Slingerland of Stemcentrx (No. 10)

Doug Evans of Juicero (No. 52)

Marwan Fawaz of Nest (No. 89)

Phil Fernandez of Marketo (No. 81)

Nat Friedman of Xamarin (No. 48)

Kris Gale and Vivek Garipalli of Clover Health (No. 73)

Ali Ghodsi of Databricks (No. 78)

Logan Green and John Zimmer of Lyft (No. 22)

Diane Greene of Bebop and Google (No. 15)

Bill Gurley of Benchmark Capital (No. 23)

Reed Hastings of Netflix (No. 16)

Orion Hindawi of Tanium (No. 36)

Ben Hindman of Mesosphere (No. 58)

Reid Hoffman and Jeff Weiner of LinkedIn (No. 5)

Ryan Hoover of Product Hunt (No. 91)

George Hotz of Comma.ai (No. 39)

Steve Huffman of Reddit (No. 60)

Andre Iguodala (No. 99 )

Brendan Iribe and Palmer Luckey of Oculus VR (No. 25)

Talia Jane of Yelp (No. 84)

Bozoma Saint John of Apple (No. 51)

Travis Kalanick of Uber (No. 3)

Tim Kentley-Klay and Jesse Levinson of Zoox (No. 79)

Dag Kittlaus of Viv and Siri (No. 67)

Jeff Lawson of Twilio (No. 21)

Jess Lee of Polyvore (No. 87)

Chris Lehane of Airbnb (No. 54)

Max Levchin of Affirm (No. 62) 

Joe Lonsdale of 8VC (No. 85)

David Marcus of Facebook (No. 9)

Marissa Mayer of Yahoo (No. 49)

Brian McClendon of Uber (No. 46)

Todd McKinnon of Okta (No. 63)

Rob Mee of Pivotal (No. 30)

Mårten Mickos of HackerOne (No. 65)

Dustin Moskovitz of Asana (No. 77)

Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX (No. 4)

Divya Nag of Apple (No. 72)

Xavier Niel of 42 (No. 92)

Rick Osterloh of Google (No. 59)

Larry Page of Alphabet (No. 2)

Chamath Palihapitiya of Social Capital (No. 24)

Sundar Pichai of Google (No. 11)

Shervin Pishevar of Sherpa Capital (No. 80)

Matthew Prince, Lee Holloway, and Michelle Zatlyn of CloudFlare (No. 93)

Joshua Reeves of Gusto (No. 56)

Tom Reilly of Cloudera (No. 95)

Venkata "Murthy" Renduchintala of Intel (No. 57)

Chuck Robbins of Cisco (No. 26)

Martin Roscheisen of Diamond Foundry (No. 69)

Ali Rowghani of Y Combinator (No. 74)

Chris Sacca of Lowercase Capital (No. 20)

David Sacks of Zenefits (No. 27)

Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook (No. 34)

Dan Schulman of PayPal (No. 12)

Ben Silbermann and Evan Sharp of Pinterest (No. 61)

Javier Soltero of Microsoft (No. 90)

Peter Szulczewski of Wish (No. 43)

Peter Thiel of Founders Fund, Palantir, and Thiel Fellowship (No. 14)

Nirav Tolia of Nextdoor (No. 94)

Chris Urmson of Google (No. 53)

Kyle Vogt of Cruise (No. 17)

Chris Wanstrath of Github (No. 83)

Nick Weaver of Eero (No. 76)

Meg Whitman of Hewlett-Packard (No. 13)

Ev Williams of Medium and Obvious Ventures(No. 41)  

Anne Wojcicki of 23andMe (No. 70)

Susan Wojcicki of Youtube (No. 50)

Susan Wu, Laura I. Gómez, Erica Baker, Ellen Pao, Tracy Chou, Y-Vonne Hutchinson, Bethanye McKinney Blount, Freada Kapor Klein of Project Include (No. 64)

Tony Xu of DoorDash (No. 97)

Marco Zappacosta of Thumbtack (No. 88)

Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook (No. 1)

NATE SILVER: Donald Trump would most likely win the election if it were held today

If the election were held Monday, Donald Trump would likely win.

That's what renowned statistician Nate Silver projected on Mondayfor his data journalism outlet FiveThirtyEight.

In his "Now-cast" election model for who would win if ballots were cast Monday, Silver gave the Republican nominee a 57.5% chance of winning the presidency.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had a 42.5% chance of securing the nation's highest office if voters were to take to the polls Monday.

Silver's model had Trump winning in the swing states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire. He would win 285 electoral votes in Silver's model.

It's the first time in Silver's "Now-cast" forecast that Trump has been projected to win.

However, in Silver's polls-only forecast and in his polls-plus forecast, Clinton was still favored to come out on top. In the polls-only model, Clinton had a 53.7% chance of winning, while in the polls-plus model, Silver gave Clinton a 58.2% chance of winning in November. But those numbers are a drastic drop-off from where they recently were — hovering around 80%.

Silver raised eyebrows Friday on Twitter when he pointed out "how plausible it is that Trump could become president."

Trump has received a bump in the polls since the Republican National Convention in Cleveland wrapped up last week. He jumped ahead of Clinton in a set of new surveys released Monday.

In the RealClearPolitics average of several polls, Trump pulled ahead of Clinton by 0.2 points on the back of four consecutive polls showing him ahead of the former secretary of state. It's the second time in the entire election cycle that Trump has led Clinton in the coveted polling average.