From Meghan Trainor to Zayn to the Pussycat Dolls, artists are canceling their concert tours. These cancellations have been attributed to “blue dot fever” or unsold tickets. Affordability and the reduced power of nostalgia seem to be the biggest contributors to the empty seats.

Why are seats not selling?

“Blue dot fever” indicates the “blue dots used to represent available seats on ticket-sale websites,” said Newsweek. The term is “being used on social media to refer to artists who seem unable to sell out the venues they’ve been booked for.” While many of the artists who canceled shows and concert tours did not cite ticket sales as their reason for doing so, fans have speculated that it was a contributing factor.

There are “signs that consumer tolerance for high prices is breaking and a correction is taking place,” said The Times. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, the average ticket price “increased from $96.17 in 2019 to $106.07 in 2022, marking the first time it had crossed the $100 threshold,” said Pollstar. The price of concert tickets peaked in 2024 at $135.92. In 2025, the “price dropped 2.4% to $132.62, but it’s still more than either 2022 or 2023.” Directly after the pandemic, “there was such pent-up demand that it was really easy to tour and everybody was making a lot of money,” JR Lind, a senior writer at Pollstar, said to The Times. “Now, there’s a little bit of coming back to earth.” With “inflation and rising fuel costs,” affordability is “going to start affecting concerts.”

“Sky-high high ticket prices” are happening because of “three key factors,” said Rolling Stone. “Supply and demand, as reflected in the controversial practice of dynamic pricing; rampant scalping; and one dominant company, Live Nation, controlling every source of revenue, including beer, food, parking and Ticketmaster service fees.”

In addition, touring costs have become high. The national average for regular gas is at $4.56 a gallon, with California at $6.17. Diesel fuel averages $7.49 a gallon in California, which is “critical for the trucks that move staging, lighting and equipment between cities,” said the San Francisco Chronicle. “Those costs can quickly change the math for tours that depend on long-haul logistics.”

Are there cultural implications?

Along with the ticket prices, the cultural capital for many artists is dwindling. Artists are “getting booked into rooms too big for where they sit today,” Nathan Green, the CEO and co-founder of New Level Radio, said to Newsweek. Older artists banking on nostalgia are struggling most: Zayn, formerly a member of boy band One Direction, and the Pussycat Dolls, a girl group that was big in the early aughts, both recently canceled their U.S. tours.

In 2024, the “British band Oasis sold out its first North American tour since 2008 within an hour” and “Coldplay, Hilary Duff and My Chemical Romance are among artists who have seen huge demand for live concerts despite the height of their popularity being two decades ago,” said Newsweek. Still, banking on old glory no longer works for everyone.

“Blue dot fever” disproportionately affects smaller or older artists. “Mega-stars and must-see tours continue to sell, while some arena and stadium runs find that streaming popularity, nostalgia or social media buzz does not always translate into thousands of $100-plus seats,” said the San Francisco Chronicle.

The problem could be helped by downsizing. “If the business goes back to booking artists into rooms they can fill, even if it means smaller venues and more nights, the show looks like a show again,” said Green. “The empty seats are a sign to every fan that the hype was bigger than the act.”

Older people are becoming increasingly vulnerable to scams, and the latest target appears to be inheritance tax.

From April 2027, pensions are to be used in inheritance calculations, but criminals are attempting to “exploit people’s concerns” by inventing fake scams claiming a person’s retirement savings can be invested abroad instead, said The Guardian.

The impact of scams is “often emotional as well as financial”, said Age UK. In terms of the financial cost, research by VirginMedia 02 found that over-65s falling victim to such fraud lose £831 on average.

Scammers are often “emotionally manipulating” their victims, said StopThinkFraud, before they steal money or personal data. But you can protect yourself or encourage your family members to be careful by “staying vigilant and always taking a moment to stop, think and check” the source of the information.

‘Grandparent’ scams

One of the “most common scams”, said The Mirror, is where criminals pose as a grandchild or close relative. In instances like these, the scammer claims to have a new number and says they are in trouble, all in the “hope of being sent money”.

A major red flag is that scammers often request to be paid “through gift cards or wire transfers” so victims “have no way to ever recover their money”, said the National Council on Aging. This scam is seen as particularly effective “because it exploits people’s emotions”.

Authorised push payment fraud

Victims can “lose their life savings in a matter of seconds” from authorised push payment (APP) fraud, said Age UK.

This involves scammers pretending to be the police, a government department or your bank and “tricking people into transferring money” to an account under their control.

This type of scam is “more attractive” to criminals because they can “quickly take the money and run”, said FICO.

Romance scams

Romance scams involve fraudsters setting up a fake profile to steal money. Scammers lure in their victims with the promise of a genuine relationship, gaining trust before requesting funds.

Victims aged between 75 and 84 lost £9,054 on average in 2024 from romance scams, said Lloyds Bank, 52% more than all other age groups.

Scammers often target older people, said the Daily Express, who are seen as “less tech savvy and more likely to be keen to forge a new relationship”.

Modelling scams

A “new twist on a well-known scam”, said the BBC, is fake modelling agencies aimed at older people who may be searching for opportunities in retirement, or to branch out with a side hustle.

These “phoney modelling agencies” have been taking cash from “desperate” young people for years, and scammers have “found a new target” – older people.

AI scams

National Trading Standards has warned of a “new and advanced” phone scam that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to clone voices, said Which?.

It appears to be targeting older people, using the “ruse of a ‘lifestyle survey’ cold call”. The survey responses given are used to create “AI-generated voice clones” to then start direct debits “without your knowledge”.

How to protect yourself from scams

Scams can often be “sophisticated” and therefore “difficult to spot”, said the Financial Conduct Authority. But there are “warning signs” to look out for.

You can protect yourself by “treating all unexpected calls, emails and text messages with caution”, and check the FCA register online to see if a firm asking about financial products is regulated.

If you think you have been scammed, “act quickly to help limit the damage”, said MoneyHelper. Contact your bank or card provider “immediately” using their official phone number, and stop any further payments “straight away”.

Those who are targeted can also highlight the matter to Report Fraud.

Keir Starmer swept to power in July 2024 promising “change”, “national renewal” and a “return of politics to public service”. Less than two years later, his premiership is hanging by a thread as more and more of his own MPs and ministers break cover and call for him to go. At least 81 Labour MPs have so far called for the PM to step down and bring his troubled premiership to an untimely end.

Here are five moments that have brought Starmer to the brink.

Winter fuel U-turn

Labour’s honeymoon was short-lived, with the Stockport riots and “Freebie-gate” dominating its first few months in power. But it was the early decision to introduce means-testing to winter fuel payments for older people that proved particularly toxic with voters still unsure about what Starmer and his party stood for.

Long advocated by the Treasury but opposed by successive chancellors for over a decade, it was “one of Labour’s first acts in power and helped ensure voter disillusionment set in early”, said The Times. Starmer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves and the wider government have never really recovered.

To make matters worse, rather than quickly reverse course, No. 10 doubled down, for months insisting the move was necessary to get the public finances under control. Only after MPs reported it was coming up again and again on the doorstep and was the first, and only, thing people could cite about Labour’s time in office did Starmer finally decide to U-turn.

National insurance rises

In her first Budget in the autumn of 2024, Reeves was accused of breaking a key election manifesto pledge not to increase taxes on working people. Increasing the employers’ rate of NI was meant to raise £24 billion in a bid to balance the books, but the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the move would lead to job losses, a squeeze on pay and lower growth. While technically not a breach of its tax promise to voters, it increased the financial strain on small businesses and left a sour taste in the mouths of many voters who felt they had been deceived.

Welfare U-turn

While Starmer’s most “serious failing was the absence of rigorous preparation for government”, looking back, the “critical moment” in his premiership was last summer’s U-turn on welfare spending, said The Independent’s political editor, John Rentoul.

While many agreed the welfare budget needed reforming, Reeves’ proposed £5 billion in disability cuts angered many Labour MPs while simultaneously failing to address the structural problems of the benefits system. Facing an embarrassing Commons defeat, the government U-turned again. Not only did this make Starmer look weak and in thrall to his backbenchers, it also forced Reeves to find more taxes to raise in her second Budget, after her first had already unravelled.

While other U-turns and errors were “embarrassing”, the “failure to hold the line on restraining disability spending was fundamental”, said Rentoul. “That was when Starmer’s government lost its way.”

The Mandelson affair

If a series of policy missteps and U-turns conveyed a sense of uncertainty about what Labour in government was actually for, the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as US ambassador, despite his known links to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, raised direct questions about Starmer’s judgement.

After Mandelson’s sacking in September 2025 following new emails revealing the true nature of his relationship with Epstein, the decision to push Mandelson’s appointment through despite widespread concerns within the civil service saw Starmer’s government “embroiled in Britain’s worst political scandal of this century”, said The Economist.

If Starmer “had a purpose, it was stopping things like this”. Presenting himself as a “politician of process rather than conviction” he sought to differentiate himself from recent predecessors such as Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. The Mandelson affair “reveals that process comes a distant second to political convenience”.

Local elections

All of this came to a head in last week’s local and devolved elections. With Starmer’s personal approval rating tanking and Labour squeezed by Reform UK to the right and the Greens on the left, the party lost scores of seats and councils, as well as control of Wales for the first time in a century.

While the campaign was meant to be about local issues, the elections were in many ways a “referendum” on Starmer and his government, Jonathan Tonge, professor of politics at the University of Liverpool, told Al Jazeera. Canvassers reported the PM’s popularity coming up again and again on the doorstep.

After months managing to keep his Cabinet and wider party onside and rivals at bay, the aftermath of these elections was always seen as the moment of maximum danger for Starmer – and so it has proved. He has, for now, vowed to fight on, but his time in No. 10 may be entering its final chapter.

Restless and armed with social media, unauthorized groups of teenagers across the country have been gathering for so-called teen takeovers. These loud parties can devolve into violence, exasperating community leaders and the police. And while adults worry about how to keep the chaos at bay, teens say the simple solution is to give them more to occupy their time.

What are teen takeovers?

In major cities, large gatherings of teens have “popped up in downtowns, parks and leafy neighborhoods,” said The New York Times. These teen takeovers, typically organized on social media and through word of mouth, can be “noisy, boisterous and at times violent.”

Their impact is often “amplified on television,” especially in “conservative media outfits like Fox News,” said the Times. City leaders and police have also begun paying closer attention. Anxiety over juvenile delinquency is not new. What is novel about this generation is the “role that platforms like Instagram and TikTok play in the speed of organization and the scale of assembly.”

Some of the panic over teen takeovers echoes “worries over ‘wilding’ in the late 1980s and ‘superpredators’ in the 1990s.” There’s a lot of “dog whistling” about these being “Black kids who are gathering together in these large groups, and we should be afraid of them,” Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor who studies adolescent development, said to the Times.

After coordinating on social media, hundreds of teenagers gather in public areas or malls. Sometimes, “fights break out, and some are arrested,” said The Washington Post. Video clips of the meet-ups go viral, while politicians and residents “spar over why young people are behaving this way, and what should be done about it.” Violence aside, many youth are going to takeovers because they “want a space to meet other people their age and have a good time on the weekends.” The takeovers “satisfy a craving for connection in real life, not through screens.”

How are some states responding to the issue?

The popularity of impromptu teen takeovers has “brought back a fierce debate over curfews in Detroit, Chicago and elsewhere,” said the Times. Various areas are trying methods to curb the chaos of these adolescent events. In Detroit, Mayor Mary Sheffield invited the organizers of a pair of teen takeovers to her office. Together, they “hashed out ideas like late-night basketball at city recreational centers, new public space developments and a new youth advisory board,” Sheffield said to the Times. The teenagers wanted a “place to get out, be free, have fun and hang out.”

In the nation’s capital, the D.C. Council recently voted 8 to 5 to extend the police chief’s power to declare special 8 p.m. youth curfew zones through 2028 while “adding guardrails to how police can enforce the measure,” said the Post. Mayor Muriel Bowser also promised more youth programming, “responding to calls from lawmakers and community members who say teens don’t have enough to do at night.”

The legislation is not expected to take effect until late summer, as lawmakers failed to reach a consensus on an emergency curfew that would have been put into use immediately. The debate over the curfew has been one of the most divisive on the D.C. Council, with Bowser “pushing lawmakers to act” as “federal scrutiny over the city’s response to teen takeovers hovered over discussions,” said the Post.

In Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, with permission from the police department, the principal of the local high school, school staff members and dozens of parents congregated along the street where a teen takeover was planned. When teens arrived, a “mob of adults was there to greet them and watch them to ensure trouble didn’t get started,” said the Chicago Tribune.

Parent takeovers and similar direct parent involvement could help police quell the danger in other neighborhoods, said Chicago Police Department Superintendent Larry Snelling to the Tribune. Many young people “don’t necessarily fear the police,” he said. A lot of them would be “more concerned if they saw their parents or their teachers there, who could identify them and what they’re doing.”

Restrictions on high-risk uses of artificial intelligence in the EU will be delayed by more than a year under a deal struck by its legislators.

The deal “marks a notable rollback” in the bloc’s “digital rulebook after years of Brussels proudly marketing itself as the world’s tech cop”, said The Register.

What is changing?

The EU’s AI Act came into force in August 2024 after “years of talks”. But as part of a “phased rollout”, the rules governing high-risk uses were only “set to kick in this August”, said Politico.

Instead, the bloc has “hit the regulatory equivalent of ‘snooze for 16 months’”, said The Register. “The headline change pushes back enforcement of rules covering systems” in areas such as biometrics, critical infrastructure, education, employment, migration, and border control until December 2027.

For products like lifts and toys, compliance deadlines for their AI systems are “stretching” further – to August 2028. Meanwhile, smaller companies get “more breathing room”. The EU hopes it will “avoid duplication between sectoral and AI rules”, it said in a press release.

EU officials insist the delay is “about timing, not watering down the law”. They claim the rules are “moving faster than the standards needed to support them” and that companies currently “lack the guidance and technical tools required for compliance”.

Is this a win for Big Tech?

The change of heart is a “big win” for tech firms and industry groups that have been lobbying the EU to “soften” the AI Act, said The Register. As recently as last week, bosses from companies including ASML, Airbus, Ericsson, Nokia, SAP, Siemens and Mistral AI “publicly warned that Europe risked over-regulating itself out of the global AI race”.

The new deal, which marks the “first significant rollback” of rules in the digital sphere, came after the EU faced pressure from the US over its tech laws. There were also “warnings” from its own industry and governments that “strict restrictions had put the bloc at a disadvantage in a global AI race”, said Politico.

“Only a couple of countries around the world” followed the EU’s lead on restrictions, so the bloc “faced criticism” for “cracking down on AI too early”, despite “civil society” saying that “rules are needed to protect people from the potential harms of the emerging technology”.

Arba Kokalari, a Swedish MEP on the internal market committee, insisted that the EU is “not weakening any safety rules”, but rather “clarifying the rules for companies in Europe”.

What is staying the same?

Some aspects of the AI Act will keep to their original schedule. Bans on unacceptable-risk AI have applied since February 2025, according to the European Commission. The transparency obligations under Article 50, including disclosure for chatbot interactions, will come into force from 2 August.

The European Parliament and Council also agreed to ban AI systems that create child sexual abuse material or that depict identifiable people in sexually explicit content without consent. Companies have until the end of this year to comply.

Palantir Technologies Inc., a Miami-based company that specialises in data integration and analysis, is seldom out of the news. This is partly because it works in controversial sectors: its biggest client is the US military, and its software is used in conflicts from Israel to Ukraine. Clients also include the CIA and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice); it was involved in Elon Musk’s short-lived Department of Government Efficiency.

It has also expanded into healthcare: in Britain, its contracts include a £330 million deal with NHS England, as well as a £240.6 million deal with the Ministry of Defence.

But its notoriety is in part because of its eccentric CEO, Alex Karp. Palantir recently posted on X/ Twitter a manifesto penned by Karp, which, among other things, declared that “Silicon Valley has an affirmative obligation to participate in the defence of the nation”; called for universal conscription; encouraged the development of AI weapons; and condemned the West’s “vacant and hollow pluralism”. One MP called it “the ramblings of a supervillain”.

Where did Palantir come from?

Founded in 2003 by a group of tech moguls headed by Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal and a libertarian political activist, Palantir was named after the “seeing stones” in “The Lord of the Rings”. (Thiel is a J.R.R. Tolkien fan.) Originally, it applied PayPal’s fraud detection system – which successfully identified fraudulent activity on eBay – to US national security; early funding came from In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm that funds projects for the CIA.

Palantir’s technology was taken up by the US defence establishment under President Obama – it is rumoured that it was involved in the assassination of Osama Bin Laden – and it helped the US and UK governments with contact tracing and vaccine distribution during the Covid pandemic. It now helps the Trump administration track undocumented immigrants, and provides Israel’s military with “intelligence and surveillance services”. Palantir currently has a market capitalisation of some $350 billion.

What does it actually do?

One former employee likened Palantir’s work to “really extravagant plumbing with data”. Most big companies and government agencies have a lot of information they can’t easily use because it’s stored in a hodgepodge of different systems and databases.

Palantir’s core products – “Foundry”, primarily for civilian use, and “Gotham”, for military and law enforcement – sit on top of those different systems and pull all the data together in an interface that’s easy to use (little coding is required). A big selling point is that Palantir doesn’t itself access or exploit the data, which stays with the customer; it just makes it easier to analyse. This is useful for all sorts of unobjectionable things, such as Covid testing and tracing. But it also allows Ice to collect large amounts of information to investigate individuals – and it helps the US military to plan bombing campaigns.

What is its military role?

Palantir is the leading contractor for Project Maven, the US military’s (and Nato’s) targeting system. Maven draws together a mass of data from drones, satellites, signals and other sources to flag potential targets; it presents findings to human analysts in one clear user interface; and can relay their decisions to appropriate weapons systems.

According to a new book, “Project Maven” by Katrina Manson, the entire “kill chain”, from target identification to target destruction, consists of four clicks. Maven allows hundreds of targets to be hit per day; and adding in AI tools to help interpret data means that number is capable of rising into the thousands.

Similar Palantir technology is used in Ukraine, and since 7 October 2023, it has worked closely with the Israel Defence Forces, whose AI-assisted systems use algorithms to identify and assassinate suspected Hamas agents.

What are the implications of this technology?

Speeding up the steps between identifying a target and destroying it is fundamental to modern warfare, so it is immensely valuable. In Ukraine, Palantir’s tools have helped to fuse battlefield intelligence, track and destroy drones, even document war crimes.

But such systems are not infallible, and accelerating the kill chain also minimises the role of human judgement: Maven was used to wrongly identify a primary school in Minab, Iran (in a building used years before by the Revolutionary Guard Corps), as a military target. US missiles killed some 168 people, mostly young girls.

Where does the NHS come into all this?

Palantir has been involved in the NHS’s data-handling since 2020, during Covid. In 2023, it won a contract to develop the Federated Data Platform, designed to streamline tangled datasets across the NHS and help clear hospital backlogs. In some hospitals, for example, scheduling operations may require staff to consult separate systems for waiting lists, theatre bookings, staff rotas and equipment orders.

But many critics dislike the idea of a US spy-tech firm, with links to the US and Israeli militaries, potentially gaining access to sensitive health data. Others question its value for money.

How worried should we be?

Palantir has become “a cultural shorthand for dystopian surveillance”, says Wired magazine. It is a cause célèbre on the British Left that has been taken up by the Greens’ Zack Polanski. Arguably, though, it is just a data analytics company with a militarised culture designed in part to give it a mystique: the company’s slogan is “We build software that dominates”; it uses military and intelligence jargon instead of more standard office terms. (Its data consultants are known as “forward deployment software engineers” or “deltas”.)

But not least because of its close links to a US administration that is an unreliable ally at best, many policymakers in Western Europe are now reconsidering the wisdom of using Palantir’s services.

Who is Alex Karp?

Karp, 58, the son of a Jewish doctor and an African-American artist from Philadelphia, was a left-wing student activist; he studied in Frankfurt under the socialist philosopher Jürgen Habermas and has no background in computing. He had become friends with Peter Thiel at Stanford Law School, and in 2003 helped co-found Palantir.

Karp has always been outspoken about the company’s values – Palantir has long refused to work with Chinese or Russian companies – but these have moved markedly to the right over the years, and today he often rails against “woke” thinking, describing it as “pagan”. Karp is a fan of martial arts and pistol shooting, and has a retinue of bodyguards drawn from Norwegian special forces, apparently because they are able to keep up with his obsessive cross-country skiing. His net worth is estimated at over $15 billion.

Palantir’s “manifesto”, like Karp’s recent book “The Technological Republic”, seemed to argue for a merger between Silicon Valley and a nationalistic, militarised US state; but it also railed, idiosyncratically, against the iPhone and the “post-war neutering of Germany and Japan”. It was seen by some as an attempt to curry favour with the Trump White House, which has turned on tech firms deemed unsupportive, such as Anthropic.

You finally found the right house to make an offer on — only to discover you’re not the only one. If you are competing against one or more prospective buyers for the same house, you have ended up in what is known as a bidding war.

A set-up like this obviously puts the seller at a major advantage, as they have their pick when it comes to offers. As a buyer in the running, putting up more money is likely going to be key, but it is not the only factor that will lead to landing the house.

How does a bidding war work?

Bidding wars are “common when housing supply is low and buyer demand is high — often referred to as a seller’s market,” said Zillow. This scenario, with more buyers than there are houses, leads to multiple buyers making an offer on the same house.

Once they learn they are not the only one in the running, homebuyers will “go back and forth adjusting their offers to make them more appealing to the seller,” said Chase.

This usually means pushing up the purchase price of the home, with offers in a bidding war going above the asking price. But there are also other ways buyers can sweeten the deal, like making an earnest money deposit, limiting contingencies or trying to accommodate the seller’s preferred closing timeline.

How can you improve your odds of winning a bidding war?

Sellers are typically looking for the highest price they can get, particularly when a bidding war over their property emerges. “However, since potential buyers have no idea what other offers may be submitted, they can include escalation clauses,” which effectively “indicate that they are willing to bid higher if needed,” up to a specified ceiling, said U.S. News & World Report. You can also increase the amount of your earnest money deposit to demonstrate your seriousness as a buyer.

The amount you put up is not all that matters — how you are paying can also make a difference. For instance, “bidding with a cash offer may provide an edge over higher bids that require financing,” since cash offers “aren’t contingent on a lender approving a mortgage so they give the seller confidence that the deal will close,” said U.S. News & World Report. If you are not in a position to make a cash offer, it is important to have all of your ducks in a row with financing — namely, mortgage preapproval.

Sellers may additionally be assuaged by having greater certainty a deal will actually go through, which is why limiting or waiving contingencies, such as for a home inspection or appraisal, can boost your odds. Just make sure to think twice before doing this, as it can expose you to more risk.

Lastly, keep in mind how much flexibility can work to your advantage. For example, a “seller might be moving across the country for work and need to close by a specific date,” said SoFi. “So if you can get the appraisal and inspection done swiftly, that could be a huge plus.”

When should you walk away from a bidding war?

Buying a house is already an emotional process, and once the element of competition enters the equation, it can be easy to get carried away. But the reality is that “you don’t want to overextend yourself financially and can continue looking for a home you can afford,” said Rocket Mortgage.

If a home is moving out of your budget, or if you are taking on more risk than you are reasonably willing to stomach, it may be better to move onto the next house. There is bound to be another you will feel excited about.

Airlines cut 13,000 flights globally in May as jet fuel prices soared due to the conflict in the Middle East.

In the future, these “spiralling” fuel costs could “spell the end of budget flights”, wrote Cathy Adams, news features editor, travel, in The Times.

Why are prices up?

Airfares have risen 24% year on year, according to the consultancy group Teneo. The price of jet fuel, usually the second-largest element of airlines’ costs after crew, is rising. In the week ending 1 May, the price of a barrel of jet fuel had risen 101% year on year to $181 (£133), according to the International Air Transport Association’s Jet Fuel Monitor.

These hikes are then passed on to travellers. Prices on some routes, such as London to Hong Kong and Singapore, have tripled since the start of 2026. Carriers including Air France-KLM, Virgin Atlantic and Emirates are adding fuel surcharges.

Other airlines are warning of price rises once their current hedge arrangement – which allows them to buy fuel at a fixed price – expires.

Are higher prices here to stay?

For the time being, yes. Even once the Strait of Hormuz is reopened to allow the free flow of crude oil and refined jet fuel, it will take a “minimum of three months for lower fuel costs to work their way through the supply chain”, Bryan Terry, the managing director at Alton Aviation Consultancy and former director of industry fuel services at the IATA, told Adams.

“Even then, airlines will try to hold higher fares in place as long as they can to recoup the costs and losses they’ve absorbed since the conflict began”, so passengers should “start thinking of elevated airfares as the new normal for the foreseeable future”.

There are other factors expected to push prices up in the longer term. Aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus are struggling with production delays and engine shortages, which means fewer available seats overall.

Major carriers have signed “historic contracts” with pilot unions and ground crews over the past two years, and some of the cost of the wage increases is passed on to passengers, said Fly Fairly.

Finally, EU climate laws mean prices will be 13 to 14 times higher in 2030 than in 2019, claimed Airlines for Europe.

How can I find cheaper flights?

In the “near term” there are “bargains to be had” as airlines “battle to fill their planes” for a summer season during which travellers are “nervous to commit to overseas holidays”, said Adams.

The “very thin silver lining” is that as airfares go up, the cost of extras such as baggage and seat selection “typically goes down”.

As usual, airlines and agents continue to advise passengers to “book sooner rather than later” to “lock in a good deal”. Meanwhile, “whether we’ve seen the last of the £9.99 flight to Spain remains to be seen”.

Sure, you may know that being annoyed costs you mentally and emotionally. It could be costing you financially as well.

The so-called annoyance economy refers to the web of spam calls, customer service chatbots and impossible-to-cancel subscriptions, among other aggravations, that Americans have to navigate in their regular financial lives, whether it’s to rebook a canceled flight or to stop paying for a service they are no longer using. All these small tasks, and the time and headaches they can involve, add up to a real financial cost.

What’s the annoyance economy?

To boil it down, it includes the “everyday interactions that should be simple but often turn into fraught ordeals,” said a report from Neale Mahoney, a Stanford economist, and Chad Maisel, a policy fellow at Groundwork Collaborative, per The New York Times. Common examples of these interactions include customer service calls, spam calls and texts, wait times, junk fees and health insurance paperwork.

Take this relatable scenario: “You call your insurance company about a nixed claim, get routed through a phone tree, wait 40 minutes, explain your problem to a chatbot that can’t help, then start over with a human agent who asks for the same information. By the time you hang up, you’ve burned an hour on what should’ve been a two-minute fix — and you might have to call again,” said Investopedia. Repeated over the course of the year, this constitutes the overall framework of annoyances that is costing Americans big, both in money and time.

How can it impact your bottom line?

Per one estimate, the “accumulated cost” of the annoyance economy “adds up to $165 billion a year in lost time and wasted money for American families,” said the report. Some of its costs are a little less quantifiable, such as “delaying needed medical care because of overwhelming paperwork,” said The New Republic.

The annoyance economy’s impact can be starker for those surviving on tighter budgets. For families “living paycheck to paycheck, the burden of excessive overdraft fees,” for example, can “add up and mean the difference between affording enough to eat or not,” said The New Republic. For others who “fall through the cracks of the complex healthcare system, it can mean tens of thousands of dollars in unexpected medical bills.”

Is it possible to avoid falling victim to it?

While it may be tough to opt out entirely, there are steps you can take to mitigate the impact. For one, pay attention to junk fees. Often, these fees are designed to slip by unnoticed, but you can save by keeping an eye out. When a “charge doesn’t match an advertised price, contest it” by filing a complaint with the FTC, said Investopedia.

Also, know your rights when canceling. “Several states now require businesses to make canceling as easy as signing up,” said Investopedia. So if the process seems tougher than it should be, document and report it.

Finally, be proactive about blocking spam. Cut down on fielding pesky calls and texts by exploring options to block them. You can register your number at DoNotCall.gov, and some carriers also offer tools for filtering calls.

One of the world’s biggest and most prestigious art events has opened mired in political controversy, resignations and boycotts over the ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East.

The 61st edition of the Venice Biennale, which takes place every two years, began on Tuesday “under grey clouds and rain showers”, reflecting an atmosphere dominated by “political tension, parties and protest”, said Lanre Bakare in The Guardian.

What’s the cause?

The festival had been thrown into turmoil even before it formally opened. Last week, the entire five-person biennale jury resigned over the decision to allow Russia to participate – they previously stated they would not give awards to artists from countries whose leaders were facing charges of crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Russia did not show in the past two editions because of the outcry over its war in Ukraine, but was allowed to reopen its pavilion this year in what The New York Times called a “soft-power opportunity” for the Kremlin.

The Biennale argued it is “an open institution” that “rejects any form of exclusion or censorship of art”, but its decision sparked outrage from the Italian government – with Culture Minister Alessandro Giuli boycotting the opening – and the European Commission, which has threatened to terminate or suspend its €2 million (£1.73 million) grant for the exhibition.

Why the change in stance?

In letters seen by the Financial Times, the commission warned Russia’s participation would violate a ban on “providing services” to the Kremlin, as the pavilion is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government.

“By not respecting EU sanctions, Biennale has called into question its obligation to ensure respect of EU values,” the Commission’s agency for culture wrote.

With the threat of further protests and boycotts ahead of the public opening on Saturday, organisers finally bowed to pressure and agreed to close the Russian pavilion to the public.

Tetyana Berezhna, a Ukrainian culture minister, told The Guardian that not opening Russia's pavilion to the public was a “meaningful step” but that the country’s “symbolic presence” was still powerful.

“Cultural platforms shape global perception,” she said. “They define what is considered acceptable and whose voices are amplified. In this context, every form of representation matters.”

What about Israel?

There have also been protests aimed at Israel’s entry. It shuttered its pavilion in 2024 amid growing condemnation of its occupation of Gaza, with the building guarded by military personnel.

This year it is back, but “if anything, Israel’s presence has proved even more divisive” than Russia’s, said The Telegraph’s chief art critic Alastair Sooke.

Last autumn, an activist collective, Art Not Genocide Alliance (ANGA), organised a letter demanding the exclusion of Israel that was signed by almost 220 artists, curators and “art workers” involved in this year’s show. It has invited people to stand “in solidarity” against what it calls a “genocidal state” perpetrating “Zionist atrocities” in Palestine and plans to protest the participation of Israel this Friday.

Although it did not name specific names, the jury’s decision not to award artists from countries whose leaders are facing charges by the ICC includes Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Vladimir Putin.

The Israeli foreign ministry responded to the statement, saying: “The political jury has transformed the Biennale from an open artistic space of free, boundless ideas into a spectacle of false, anti-Israeli political indoctrination.”

“For some, the jury’s resignation was predictable”, said Sooke, yet “for those on the other side of the debate, excluding any country from the Biennale smacks of censorship”.

“Their decision discriminated against me on a racial basis,” said the Romanian-born Israeli sculptor Belu-Simion Fainaru, who’s representing Israel. “I’m an artist and have equal rights, and I can’t be judged by belonging to a country or a race. I should just be judged on the quality and message of my art.”

Sooke said arguments over whether or not artists should be accountable for the actions of their state or country have highlighted “the creakiness of the Biennale’s national pavilion system”, one that seems outdated and “stymied by geopolitics, given the cosmopolitan nature of contemporary art”.

Pressure is growing to give people living together more rights so that they share the same benefits as married couples.

The makeup of UK households has changed over the past decade, with the latest data from the Office for National Statistics showing the number of cohabiting-couple families in 2025 was 3.5 million, up from 3.2 million in 2024. This makes up 17% of households. In contrast, married couples accounted for 65.3% of families in 2025, or 13 million, down from 66% in 2015.

This trajectory is “intensifying pressure”, said Forsters Law, for “long-awaited” reform of laws for unmarried couples who live together.

The government has promised to consult on changes, but for now, many couples appear unaware of the risks from remaining outside of marriage’s legal framework.

What rights do couples have?

Common-law marriage may be recognised in some countries, said solicitors Bell Lamb & Joynson, but it is “a myth in the UK”.

Cohabiting couples do not have many rights around finances, property or children, which can be an issue if a relationship breaks down or a partner passes away.

If an unmarried couple splits up, there are no automatic rights to each other’s property, assets or income, apart from property that is jointly owned and child maintenance.

What happens to property?

Unlike a married couple, a cohabiting partner has no rights to claim a percentage of their partner’s assets or property, regardless of how long they have lived together or if they have children together. Unless it is a joint ownership.

It may be worth owning a property as ”tenants in common” with a deed of trust, said MoneySavingExpert, if it is “more complicated than a simple 50/50 split”.

But you have far fewer rights if the property is solely owned by your partner in the event of a split.

Are there Inheritance rights?

Very few. Unless assets are jointly owned or an individual applies to the courts, they will not inherit anything from a partner, unlike married spouses or those in a civil partnership.

A valid will, outlining beneficiaries, can provide reassurances that money or assets such as property can be passed on.

Those who inherit assets from their partner will benefit, but under current law, married couples enjoy far more protection and allowances. For example, spouses can pass assets to each other tax-free, but for those not married, anything worth above £325,000 in a deceased person’s estate could face an inheritance tax charge.

The lack of rights for unmarried couples might seem “harsh”, said law firm Slater and Gordon, but marriage provides a “certain degree of clarity” and comes with the “benefits and liability of a contract”.

However, “marriage isn’t the only type of legal contract”, and a cohabitation agreement or a declaration of trust can also provide some legal protection.

Can pensions be passed on?

Not in the majority of cases, which makes them a particularly “big risk area” for unmarried couples, said The Times.

Most schemes will automatically pay out to a spouse, but there are “no guarantees” for cohabiting partners. In some cases, payments for long-term partners will be allowed, and is worth investigating to see whether certain documentation needs to be completed in advance, such as an expression of wish form.

Restore Britain received its latest high-profile endorsement last week when former Chelsea captain John Terry replied “100% yes” to an Instagram post by party founder Rupert Lowe wanting to “ban foreigners from claiming benefits”, “remove migrants who are incapable of financially supporting themselves” and “put our own people first”.

Lowe, the Great Yarmouth MP, set up Restore Britain last year as what he called a “political movement” after he was suspended by Reform UK. It was then formally launched as a political party in February. Despite being just a few months old, the party is polling at 4%, according to YouGov.

It might have been “conceived as a pressure group”, said LBC, but Lowe has since “stepped up his ambitions and appears willing to challenge his old party for the space on the right”.

What are its policies?

Curbing immigration is a key Restore policy. Its official website says: “Mass immigration has been a disaster for Britain. It has left us poorer, less safe, and less culturally and socially cohesive.”

It plans to “reverse mass immigration” by deporting all illegal migrants and introducing a “red list” of countries that “face far stricter security checks, limited visa categories, and higher barriers to entry”. Restore would use tents, not hotels, to house “so-called asylum seekers” before abolishing the asylum system altogether. It would end benefits for those on indefinite leave to remain, “deport rape gang collaborators” and foreign criminals, and end election campaigning in foreign languages.

On tax and benefits, it promises to “reward the nation’s grafters” by scrapping IR35 for freelancers, abolishing inheritance tax, establishing the lowest corporation tax in Europe, and getting “able-bodied Britons on benefits back to work”.

It proposes a “Britain First energy security strategy”, which would mean repealing net zero goals, requiring developers to fund local infrastructure before building housing, ending hosepipe bans for good and automating the London Tube.

Restore wants to scrap foreign aid, rearm Britain by spending more on defence and end diversity and inclusivity programmes within the Armed Forces.

It would “defund the rotten BBC”, “strengthen the teaching of our Christian heritage” within national curriculum history modules, ban the burqa, restrict halal and kosher slaughter, and repeal the Online Safety Act.

Perhaps most controversially, Restore would hold a binding referendum on restoring the death penalty in a bid to “make Britain safe again”.

What impact could it have on Reform UK?

While it shares many of the same policies as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, Lowe’s party has sought to present itself as the true voice of the right.

Despite lacking the name recognition of a leader like Farage, Restore has successfully used social media to amplify its anti-immigration rhetoric. Helped in no small part by the backing of X owner Elon Musk, Lowe is now one of the most followed UK politicians on social media.

By adopting a decentralised structure, effectively serving as an umbrella for local far-right political partners, Restore hopes to show up the top-down approach of Reform. Other far-right figures such as former EDL leader Tommy Robinson and former Reform deputy leader Ben Habib have also rallied behind the new party.

Such a force “could cost Reform a number of seats – and potentially even power, in a wafer-thin general election result – by splitting support among those drawn to hard-right anti-immigration populism”, said The Guardian.

Is it just a flash in the pan?

For now, Restore remains “really very small fry”, Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, told Politics Home. “They’re gnats, not mosquitoes” at the moment, but the party’s impact will be determined in large part by how Farage reacts. “On the one hand, it’s always helpful for Farage to be able to point to outfits on his right that he can differentiate himself from and suggest that because they’re more extreme than he is, he’s therefore not far right and actually quite mainstream”.

But political parties can be encouraged to talk about policies promoted by parties further to the fringes, which runs the risk of Farage “moving too far out of the kind of what is sometimes called the zone of acceptability, as far as most voters are concerned”.

Packing for a trip is stressful enough without the added worry of how much it will cost you to bring your suitcase on the plane. But with many airlines raising checked baggage fees amid the ongoing war with Iran, it is becoming a cost that is worth taking into account in your travel budget.

In recent months, “most major airlines have hiked the price to check a bag by about $10” in an effort to “address the added costs” of operation and of jet fuel, both of which have increased since the start of the war, said The New York Times, citing airline executives. That means for most airlines, “you’ll pay at least $90 to check a bag on your next round-trip domestic flight,” said CNBC Select. And if you are traveling with your full family or with more than one suitcase, that bill can quickly increase.

Here are some smart ways to scale back (and not necessarily on what you pack) so you can save your funds for the actual fun of vacation.

1. Understand each airline’s policies

The specifics of baggage fees — when they apply, how much they run and what you can do to waive them — may vary a lot from airline to airline. If you know you will be checking bags, take a look at those fees when you are booking, rather than just considering the cost of the flight itself.

With United, for instance, you will pay $45 for the first checked bag and $55 for the second, said the Times. Meanwhile, for Jet Blue, the cost will vary depending on whether or not you are flying during peak travel times: The first checked bag is “$39 off-peak, $49 peak,” while the second checked bag is “$59 off-peak, $69 peak.”

2. Check your credit card’s perks

If you carry an airline credit card, “chances are you don’t have to worry about baggage fees,” given that “several top airline credit cards offer a free first checked bag for the cardholder — and sometimes for companions traveling on the same itinerary as well,” said NerdWallet.

For example, the Citi/AAdvantage Platinum Select World Elite Mastercard “grants cardholders and up to four companions traveling on the same reservation a first checked bag for free on American Airlines flights,” said CNBC Select. Another option, the Delta SkyMiles Gold American Express Card, allows “you and up to eight people traveling on the same reservation to get your first checked bag free.” Just note that you may have to make your reservation using the card to get this perk.

3. Take advantage of frequent flyer status

If you are in the air often, it can make sense to take advantage of airlines’ frequent flyer programs. Many of these “allow members with elite status to fly with checked bags for free,” and sometimes even multiple bags at no cost, said NerdWallet.

Flying frequently is not the only way to get this status, either. For instance, “if you have elite status with a hotel chain, you might be able to get elite benefits on a partner airline,” plus some credit cards offer automatic status as well, said NerdWallet.

Viral TikTok videos are circulating of people dashing through Church of Scientology centers in multiple cities. And while the Gen Z pranksters believe it’s harmless fun, the famously secretive religious group wants real consequences.

What are the videos about?

They feature participants “recording themselves ‘speed-running,’ as if in a video game,” through Scientology’s buildings, often “dodging screaming church members and security guards” until they are kicked out, said NBC News. The TikTokers are going inside these properties because Scientology is a “highly controversial organization known to be secretive, shrouded in darkness and mystique,” said Forbes.

The church, which has big-name celebrity followers like Tom Cruise and John Travolta, is often described as “shady at best” and reportedly believes in “space alien magic,” including an intergalactic warlord named Xenu, said Vice. And the speed runners are trying to “rack up as many social media validation points as they can” because of the religion’s unique nature.

The fad began in Los Angeles, including at the religion’s Hollywood headquarters. And the videos have since spread to other cities across the country and abroad. Detectives in New York City began investigating after “young people stormed and ransacked parts of the Church of Scientology in Midtown Manhattan,” said WABC-TV New York. And the fad had since gone international; chaos erupted in Vancouver when “hundreds of people, mostly youths, tried to force their way into the city’s Church of Scientology building,” said CBC News.

What has the response been?

Church officials are taking the joke seriously, accusing the videos of being equivalent to a religious hate crime. Scientology buildings are “peaceful spaces designed to welcome parishioners, visitors and members of the public,” said Scientology spokesperson David Bloomberg in a statement to The Guardian. “Turning them into targets for viral stunts is not journalism, protest or civic activity. It’s trespass, harassment and disruption of religious facilities.”

After a speed-running incident in April, the Los Angeles Police Department began investigating the incident as an “alleged hate crime,” said the department to the Los Angeles Times. The LAPD “remains committed to ensuring the safety of all houses of worship.” The point of the speed runs is “raising awareness, getting people to ask questions, and of course, love of the game,” one person involved in the practice told the Times anonymously. “I enjoy questioning authority.” 

Some Scientology buildings have removed their door handles to prevent people from entering the premises. And even some who were previously associated with Scientology have said the trend is harmful. Actor Leah Remini, who left the organization in 2013 and has accused Scientology of widespread abuses, lambasted the speed runners on social media.

Whether the speed runners are “doing it for social media clout or to genuinely expose the abuses of Scientology, what they are doing is unhelpful, and by engaging in these actions, they are unwittingly helping Scientology,” said Remini on X. Scientologists are “deeply indoctrinated and radicalized and believe they are helping people,” and “running through a building is not going to break that or lead them to reconsider what they have given up their entire lives for.”

The case of a woman denied sterilisation by the NHS has brought the procedure, and the alleged double standards that hamper access to it, back into the spotlight.

Leah Spasova, a psychologist from Oxford, spent 10 years trying to access the procedure, but her funding request was turned down over “concerns regarding potential regret and cost-effectiveness”, said the BBC. As the same NHS body regularly funds vasectomies without using potential regret as grounds for rejection, Spasova complained to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Last Friday, the ombudsman ruled that a policy citing the “risk of regret” as grounds to refuse funding was “unfair” to women.

What did the ombudsman say?

The Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board’s approach was “unfair, inconsistent, and based on subjective reasoning”, the ombudsman ruled. And Spasova’s case “is not an isolated one”.

A committee responsible for recommendations across six integrated care boards in the southeast reviewed the female sterilisation policy after Spasova’s complaint. It recommended that regret or the availability of other contraception should no longer be used as grounds for refusal, and that all patients who meet the critiera can access female sterilisation.

“Rejecting my application for sterilisation on the basis of regret means they were taking on liability for my feelings,” said Spasova. Policies like this are “damaging for women’s healthcare” and “absolutely discriminatory”.

How does female sterilisation work?

Sterilisation is a procedure that blocks, seals or cuts the fallopian tubes, to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus. Also known as tubal ligation (“getting your tubes tied”), it’s usually performed under general anaesthetic via keyhole surgery, with about a week of recovery. Although complex procedures do exist to reverse it, they typically have a success rate of between 50-70% and aren’t usually available on the NHS.

Female sterilisation is the most common contraceptive method used worldwide, according to the UN. In 2019, nearly 24% of women using contraception relied on sterilisation – but it’s far more prevalent in Asia and Latin America than Europe.

A 2022 analysis of Dutch women puts the rate of regret at about 10.5%, compared with 5.1% of men who regret vasectomies. But the rate of regret is nearly twice as high among women under the age of 30: about 20%. NHS clinical guidance says sterilisation should be available for women, with counselling to address the risk of regret.

Is it available on the NHS?

Sterilisation for both men and women is organised by local integrated care boards (ICBs), as part of NHS contraception services. Most ICBs routinely fund both male and female procedures, subject to certain criteria being met, but some told The i Paper that “vasectomy is encouraged or preferred over female sterilisation”. Others “go one step further and restrict funding for female sterilisation”, said the paper. In those areas, women have to submit an individual funding request for approval.

In 2024-2025, the NHS carried out nearly 11,000 sterilisations: a year-on-year increase of 2%. But the long-term trend is downward: a 22% decrease in a decade. In contrast, the number of vasectomies performed in 2024-25 was 16% higher than in 2023-24.

What are the barriers to access?

Critics argue that the stricter eligibility criteria for women seeking sterilisation “amount to unequal treatment compared with men seeking vasectomies”, said The Guardian. But others say “tighter controls reflect legitimate medical concerns”, including the risks associated with a more invasive procedure.

Patients seeking sterilisation have been “told they are too young”, said Charlotte Glynn of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service. “There is a real problem with women not being trusted to make decisions about their own bodies,” she said. It is “a form of medical misogyny”, especially when many women "struggle with the side-effects of contraceptive pills”.

Many women are told they “might change their mind” or are asked what their partners think about their decision, Annabel Sowemimo, a consultant in sexual and reproductive health, told The i Paper. Tubal ligation also costs more than vasectomies as it requires “multiple members of staff and time in theatre”. This is compounded by the “obscene” waiting times for gynaecology treatment, she said. Life-threatening conditions are prioritised, while patients waiting for sterilisation are advised to use contraceptives instead.

If you need to take out a mortgage to purchase a house, the rate you get makes a major difference in how much you ultimately pay over time. Even just a percentage-point contrast can mean shelling out hundreds more per month on your mortgage payment. Understanding what factors influence your mortgage — and which of those you have some control over — can go a long way toward helping you secure a better rate.

What broader economic and market factors shape mortgage rates?

The “overall level of mortgage rates is set by market forces,” with rates moving “up and down daily, based on the current and expected rates of inflation, unemployment and other economic indicators,” said NerdWallet. In particular, the following has a bearing:

The overall economy. The broader economy, particularly factors like inflation and unemployment, has a sizable influence on mortgage rates. As a general rule of thumb, “mortgage rates tend to fall when the economy is slowing down, inflation is falling and the unemployment rate is rising,” said NerdWallet.

10-year Treasury yields. This yield “helps to show market trends in interest rates,” said Investopedia. “If the bond yield rises, mortgage rates typically rise as well,” and “the inverse is the same.”

Demand for mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Mortgage rates “change based on demand for MBS within the bond market,” which are effectively bundles of mortgages that lenders sell to government-backed entities, said Rocket Mortgage. “If more people are flocking to bonds,” which tends to happen more during periods of economic uncertainty, the yield “doesn’t have to be as high and mortgage rates are lower.”

The Federal Reserve. While the Federal Reserve itself does not set mortgage rates, the “biggest single factor that determines mortgage rates and all other borrowing rates in the U.S. is the Federal Reserve’s decision on the rates it charges banks in order to maintain the stability of the system,” said Investopedia.

What are the borrower-specific factors that influence mortgage rates?

While many of the forces shaping mortgage rates are out of borrowers’ control, there are still quite a few exceptions. That’s because lenders also evaluate the risk of lending to a specific individual when issuing a loan.

To make this determination, lenders look at factors like:

Credit score. A higher credit score almost always translates to a lower rate, as creditworthy borrowers present a lower risk to lenders.

Loan-to-value ratio. Your LTV ratio “compares the amount you’re borrowing with the price of the home,” said Bankrate. The “larger your down payment, the lower your LTV ratio and, generally, the lower your rate.”

Debt-to-income ratio. If you have a low ratio, “meaning the percentage of your income that goes toward monthly debt payments is low, it could result in a lower rate,” said Experian.

Loan term. The shorter your loan term, the “lower your mortgage rate is likely to be,” said Rocket Mortgage.

Property type. You can expect to pay a lower rate for a mortgage for a primary residence as opposed to a vacation or investment property. The idea is that if you “ever get into financial trouble, you’re more likely to prioritize the payment on the home you live in most of the time," said Rocket Mortgage, making a mortgage on a primary residence less of a risk in the eyes of the lender.

Workers are looking for ways to maximize their income while maintaining their peace of mind: Enter fractional working. The new, trendy employment model empowers executives and independent contractors to take control of their schedules.

What is fractional working?

While freelancers are typically hired for specific projects or hourly tasks, fractional workers are “more embedded into a business — often helping to lead the overall strategy at a company,” said CNBC. Fractional employees, unlike permanent employees, “contribute on a part-time basis for multiple businesses or clients.”

In the past few years, the shift toward fractional employment has been interesting to observe. “People who used to be seniors at companies that I’ve worked for have started going the fractional route too,” Rachael De Foe, a fractional public relations entrepreneur, said to CNBC. Fractional work is logical in a services-based business because “you are the service.”

Interest in fractional work has grown, and “both sides of the labor market are fueling the increase,” said the Harvard Business Review. For companies, demand is driven by “increased pressure to do more with fewer resources amid AI uncertainty and market volatility.” For workers, the appeal of “diversifying income streams, gaining autonomy and improving work-life balance is increasing the fractional labor supply.”

The traditional C-suite career path is “giving way to a more flexible approach,” Forbes said. Fractional leadership, once a “niche arrangement for consultants,” has become a “mainstream alternative to full-time leadership roles.”

The “explosion of fractional leadership,” said Forbes, “represents more than a “temporary trend.” Companies are facing “mounting pressure to control costs while accessing specialized expertise.” At the same time, executives are “rethinking the value proposition of traditional employment” after watching “waves of layoffs sweep through even the most stable industries.”

Can this be the future of labor?

The rise of fractional leadership is being “driven by both companies and executives,” said Forbes. Organizations gain “flexibility, faster access to specialized expertise and the ability to scale leadership as needs change.” Executives gain “diversified income, greater control over their work and a more durable form of stability with a portfolio.”

What sets this employment trend apart is alignment. Companies want “what fractional leaders offer,” and experienced executives are “choosing the same model for their own reasons.” When incentives align for both parties, “adoption accelerates naturally.” The evolution in executive work is a shift toward a “model that better reflects the reality of how companies operate and how leadership careers now develop.”

Fractional employment might also be a complementary option amid an AI takeover. Working as a fractional executive is a “juggling act made far more manageable by artificial intelligence tools like Claude, Gemini and ChatGPT,” said The New York Times.

Nonetheless, while AI is “vastly accelerating many of the tasks conducted by white-collar workers,” it can’t automate the “hard-coded requirements of bureaucracy,” said the Times. As AI makes the production of knowledge work more efficient, the job of “presenting, debating, lobbying, arm-twisting, reassuring or just plain selling the work appears to be rising in importance.” And the need for those “sometimes messy human tasks” may limit the “number of people AI displaces.”

For the shift toward accepting fractional work to hold, the “systems around it need to catch up,” said Forbes. Benefits and protections need to become more portable, Paula Gorman, a fractional operations leader and founder of The Consultants Room, said to the outlet.

If more people are “building careers across multiple clients and income streams,” said Gorman, the systems that provide stability “cannot stay tied so tightly to one traditional employer.” Industries need to “stop talking about fractional or consulting work like it is a temporary workaround.” For many people and many companies, it is “already a legitimate and strategic part of how work gets done.”

Trials of the British Army’s Ajax armoured vehicles are set to resume, despite major delays amid concern for soldiers’ safety. Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard announced in Parliament that “strict new controls” for the vehicles, long thought to be the future of Britain’s combat strategy, will be put in place.

The Ajax fleet is “expensive, noisy and eight years late”, said Deborah Haynes, security and defence editor at Sky News. Costing nearly £10 million each, and weighing more than 40 tonnes, they are “as heavy as a Russian tank and potentially vulnerable to cheap Russian drones”.

How did we get here?

In 2014, defence firm General Dynamics received a contract to produce 589 armoured vehicles, comprising 245 Ajax (for intelligence and reconnaissance), 93 Ares (armoured personnel carriers), 50 Apollo (repair vehicles), 112 Athena (command and control variants), 51 Argus (engineer reconnaissance variants) and 38 Atlas (recovery vehicles). The vehicles are assembled in Merthyr Tydfil, Wales, and had created jobs for around 700 people.

At one stage, it was suggested that the Ajax could be introduced into service by 2017, though requests to include 1,318 additional requirements set that date back. Ajax trials during 2019-20 were temporarily halted after soldiers complained that excessive vibrations were causing hearing loss. The Ajax has also been the subject of three significant and several smaller reviews since 2021.

What caused the most recent delay?

The trial was paused last year, after around 30 soldiers fell ill during exercise Titan Storm on Salisbury Plain in November last year. The soldiers reportedly emerged from the vehicles “vomiting”, with “weakness in their legs”, or “shaking so violently that they could not control their bodies”, sources told The Times. All affected soldiers have since returned to service. This exercise occurred just three weeks after Pollard had declared the vehicle had reached initial operating capability.

There was “no single causal mechanism” which resulted in the symptoms experienced by the soldiers during Titan Storm, said Pollard in Parliament this week. The report conducted by the Army Safety Investigation Team found that they were caused by “technical issues” such as “incorrect track tension and loose or missing engine deck bolts”. Exposure to cold was also thought to have played a part.

What changes will be made?

Though Pollard agreed that “the experience for our soldiers using Ajax has not been good enough”, he announced a “phased” approach to restarting the acceptance of the vehicles. None of the 23 vehicles used during Titan Storm will take part in the next trial phase.

The “troubled” tanks will feature improved air filtration, crew compartment heating and the electrical power generation systems in the second phase of the operation, said Larisa Brown, defence editor at The Times. Some officers will also be given “separate responsibilities for operating and maintaining the vehicles”.

What has the reaction been?

“I for one applaud the decision of the MoD ministers to move forward with Ajax”, said Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, former assistant director of Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance for the British Army and commander of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment, in The Telegraph. “Frankly, much of what has been written has been ill-informed, outdated, or simply wide of the mark”. What we should have learned from the Ukraine war is that armoured shock action, provided by the presence of Ajax, “remains decisive”.

Pollard and the government “have done the unforgivable in any military doctrine – they have reinforced failure”, said Sam Kiley in The Independent. They “did not seize the moment” after Titan Storm last year to “dump” the project entirely. If the vehicles’ crew “needs special earphones and head protection to get in it”, what hope is there that infantry on deployment will want to “get into a roaring target that will scramble their brains as badly as a near miss from a mortar?” The answer is “nil.”

“There’s nothing obviously wrong” with the Ajax vehicles; , said Urban in The Times. “It was a smoother ride than my Chieftain tank back in the 1980s”. But, of course, “you’d expect a Tesla to be more impressive than a 50-year-old Ford Cortina, particularly given the money spent”.

There are many ways to put money away, but are you better off sticking with savings or placing funds in your pension?

Putting money into savings or pensions, said Flagstone, “helps grow your wealth for the long term”. And while pensions provide “generous tax breaks”, said MoneySuperMarket, they aren’t as “flexible” as savings accounts. So how do you decide which is “best for your nest egg”?

Pros and cons of pensions

You can get a pension through your workplace or set up your own self-invested personal pension to manage the pot yourself.

Pensions have “valuable tax advantages”, said PensionBee, including tax relief on money you put in as well as employer contributions on workplace schemes, but the money can’t be accessed until you are 55 – and this is rising to 57 in 2028.

Once you hit the minimum age, 25% of your pension savings can be taken tax-free, said MoneyHelper, which you are “free to spend or save in any way you like”.

Up to £60,000 can be put into a pension each year, said GoCompare, and the money is invested in the stock market so there is “no limit to how much your pension investments can grow”, depending on the performance of financial markets.

Additionally, earnings in your pension are tax-free and you only pay tax once you start making withdrawals.

The earlier you start “the more your fund can grow”, said Flagstone, but as with all investing, “you can lose your money”.

Should you stick with savings?

Relying on a pension, said GoCompare, means you won’t have “easy access to money in the short-term”.

In contrast, you could put money into a savings account to set funds aside for “the future, for emergencies or to buy expensive purchases like a new car or a holiday”, said Citizens Advice, plus you will earn interest on your money.

Savers can choose from easy access, regular saver or fixed accounts. Many let you “access your cash whenever you like”, said MoneySavingExpert, but some versions such as notice accounts or fixed rates may have restrictions.

There is also a personal savings allowance of £1,000 for basic rate taxpayers and £500 for those on the higher rate.

Unlike pensions, said MoneySuperMarket, savings accounts have “no age-related restrictions” plus interest can be earned tax-free through a cash ISA, which makes them an “appealing option for many savers”.

Up to £20,000 can currently be placed into a cash ISA and also into a stocks and shares ISA. An ISA can be beneficial, said LV=, for those with “shorter- to medium-term goals”, or “people who value flexibility and access to their savings”.

Many savers have benefited from high interest rates in recent years, said MoneyWeek, but if your savings are outside an ISA and above the savings allowance, your returns can easily be “eroded away further by tax and inflation”.

Benefits of both pensions and savings

Pensions will provide a “much higher return” than cash savings, but you won’t have access to it in the short-term and there is tax on withdrawals, unlike taking money from an ISA. The “real answer” is that you can have both.

The “ideal approach”, said GoCompare, is to “take advantage” of the benefits of both pensions and savings.

You could combine the tax relief and employer contributions that you get with a pension with the “flexibility and accessibility” of savings and tax-free withdrawals from an ISA to build a “balanced financial future”.

Skipping the pump entirely by owning an electric vehicle may sound more enticing than ever as the cost of gas continues to skyrocket. Since the start of the war in Iran, the price per gallon of regular gasoline has pushed $4 in many locations. And with the average passenger car carrying between 12 and 16 gallons of fuel, according to online car-shopping guide Edmunds, costs can add up quickly per fill-up.

An EV, of course, allows you to avoid that cost entirely. But charging an electric vehicle is not necessarily free either, and there are other costs to consider in the overall equation, such as higher sticker price and faster depreciation.

How much can an EV save you on gas?

The answer depends largely on how and where you charge your vehicle. An analysis published by The New York Times in 2025 found that “driving an electric vehicle instead of a gas-powered car would save the average driver $8 every 100 miles” — but that’s “true only if you install a charger at home,” said Kelley Blue Book. If you plan to rely more often on public chargers, you may not see as notable of savings. In fact, some chargers can “cost more per mile than gas,” said Consumer Reports. However, “in every state, home charging is less expensive than gasoline,” said Kelley Blue Book.

Savings can also vary from location to location. That is because gasoline prices “vary depending upon the state, partly due to state taxes and partly because of the cost of transporting the stuff longer distances from where it’s refined,” said Kelley Blue Book. Electricity rates are similarly not fixed — and in many places, they are climbing. As such, in some states, the gap between the cost of electricity and the cost of gas may be wider or narrower, and it may change over time.

What other costs factor in when comparing an electric vs. gas car?

While gas tends to be the car-ownership cost we are confronted with most often, it is certainly not the only cost associated with owning a car. Before trading in for an EV, be sure to additionally weigh:

Sticker price: “Traditional gasoline cars usually have the lowest sticker price compared to their electrified counterparts,” said CNET.

Maintenance and repair costs: “EVs and PHEVs have 80% more problems on average than gas-only cars,” said Consumer Reports, citing its surveys of “hundreds of thousands of vehicle owners.” That said, they do have fewer parts and systems involved to maintain, and some offer “generous warranties on parts like batteries and electric drivetrains.”

Insurance costs: While “insurance costs vary a lot depending on the type of car you own,” on average, EVs are the “most expensive to insure because they have the highest sticker price, and because components such as batteries are more expensive to replace,” said CNET.

Depreciation and resale value: “Historically, EVs have experienced higher and faster depreciation than gas vehicles,” in part because the “EV technology improves so quickly,” said CNET.

Carbon costs: Environmental costs are also worth considering. “Producing an EV typically emits more greenhouse gases than manufacturing a gas car, but EVs are much less carbon intensive to drive,” with average total CO2 emissions of 30 tons for an EV sedan (including manufacturing and travel) versus 70 tons for a gas sedan, said The New York Times.

Facing decades of discrimination and exclusion, women have created networking events to help each other get a fair shake at climbing the ladder of success. But in an era that’s actively against diversity, equity and inclusion, these women-only spaces have become new targets of the Trump administration.

Why are ‘new girls’ clubs’ being targeted?

The president’s crackdown on DEI has had a “chilling effect on women’s initiatives across the business world,” said USA Today. President Donald Trump arrived in office on campaign promises to “restore fairness in the workplace” by eradicating “woke” DEI policies he believes “harm men and white Americans.” The fear of lawsuits and pressure to align with the administration has led “dozens of the nation’s largest companies, from McDonald’s to Facebook owner Meta,” to roll back diversity programs.

An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) lawsuit filed against a Coca-Cola distributor for hosting a women’s retreat in 2024 could jeopardize the network as an antithesis to old boys’ clubs. These “new girls' clubs” are “widely credited with helping women splinter the glass ceiling,” USA Today said. They allowed women to “gather, to share information, to share stories, to be inspired and to see there is a path forward for them,” Reshma Saujani, the founder of nonprofit Moms First, said to the outlet. Shutting those opportunities down is “not about restoring a meritocracy.” Instead, it’s about “ensuring there isn’t a meritocracy.”

The Coca-Cola lawsuit is the first “related to workplace diversity, equity and inclusion in the second Trump administration,” said The Independent. The EEOC accused the company of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act “with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of male employees,” the agency said in its complaint.

More such lawsuits “could be imminent,” said The Washington Post. In December, EEOC chair Andrea Lucas issued an unusual public appeal, asking white men who feel they have experienced discrimination at work to contact the agency “as soon as possible.” Women-only networking events create new girls’ clubs that operate like the old boys’ clubs before them, she said in February on LinkedIn, while likening them to racially segregated employee social events of the 1970s. The agency is already investigating “footwear giant Nike and financial services firm Northwestern Mutual over their corporate diversity initiatives,” said the Post.

Are women’s networks exclusionary?

Women’s networks “don’t exclude men, they help women catch up,” gender equity researcher Amy Diehl said to USA Today. Still, organizations have disbanded gender-based mentorship and coaching programs and employee resource groups since those programs were labeled exclusionary. Regardless of how these lawsuits are resolved, the “effect is already being felt.”

It is “really striking” that the EEOC has decided women’s networking is “so problematic that they have to go out against it,” said Chai Feldblum, the president of EEO Leaders, a group she cofounded last year to challenge the Trump administration’s attacks on employment civil rights. Our country is “not well served by frightening employers away from doing positive actions to ensure a fair and equal workplace.”

DEI opponents think the EEOC’s complaint is valid. Hosting a “lavish, all-expenses-paid retreat for women only,” while men are excluded, is “textbook discrimination, plain and simple,” Nick Barry, the senior counsel with the America First Legal advocacy organization, told USA TODAY. The law does not “carve out exceptions for discrimination that is fashionable or well-intentioned.”

Usually, these types of lawsuits involve “substantial workplace harm,” Jenny Yang, a former chair of the EEOC, said to the Post. That usually comes in the form of pay disparities and harassment, not a “single networking event, as in the Coca-Cola distributor case,” the outlet said. There has been a “sustained effort to locate a DEI-focused challenge for at least a year,” Yang said. It suggests “they didn’t have a stronger case to file.”

A mysterious new pro-Iran terror group has been linked to a series of recent attacks on Jewish communities and US financial institutions in the UK and Europe.

The only “catch”, said CNN, is that it “may be a mirage”.

Who are they and what have they claimed?

Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI), the Arabic name meaning “The Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right(eous)”, first appeared online shortly after the US and Israel launched their war on Iran at the end of February.

On 9 March, HAYI posted on the encrypted messaging app Telegram that “military operations” against US and Israeli interests around the world had begun. Two weeks later, a Telegram channel claiming to represent the group made an unsubstantiated claim of responsibility for an arson attack on four Jewish ambulances in Golders Green, north London.

It then posted videos of four other arson attacks in Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands, as well as threatening a further attack against the Bank of America building in Paris, before the channel was deleted.

Who is behind the group?

Examining the group’s digital footprint, the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism found “no known references, neither online nor offline, to HAYI prior to 9 March”.

The Netherlands-based think tank highlighted “suspicious dissemination patterns” that were seemingly coordinated with the pro-Iranian online ecosystem. This raises the question “whether HAYI is a genuine terrorist group or merely serves as a façade for Iranian hybrid operations that enable plausible deniability”.

“This group is an Iranian creation,” Phillip Smyth, an analyst on the counterterrorism advisory board for Homeland Security Today, told The i Paper. “The scope of their actions, branding, and Iran’s own messages all demonstrate a clear link.”

For Western security experts, HAYI is “either a construct aligned with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or an opportunistic network operating within the broader pro-Iranian online ecosystem”, said Radio Free Europe.

Do the attacks follow a pattern?

UK security officials have previously warned of a “rise in ‘gig-economy’ Iranian spies offered cash for operations across Europe”, and have been “actively investigating Iran’s use of social media platforms” to create “sleeper cells with the potential to carry out violent attacks”, said The i Paper.

The spate of arson attacks since the start of the war in Iran are “similar in nature to Russia’s so-called hybrid operations in Europe”, in which people have been recruited online “to carry out sabotage attacks”, said CNN. These are often perpetrated “by non-Russian nationals for small amounts of money and without full knowledge of who the operations serve”.

The series of “low-intensity” incidents involving Jewish and US targets have so far carried “limited material damage but strong symbolic impact, disseminated and amplified through channels linked to the pro-Iranian ecosystem”, said Decode 39.

These “operational and propaganda dynamics point to a possible hybrid model of terrorism in Europe: simple actions, local perpetrators and maximum ambiguity”.

There has been an increase in the spread of alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tick-borne disease that can cause a serious allergy to red meat. More than 110,000 suspected cases of AGS were identified between 2010 and 2022, and while the actual number of U.S. cases is not known, as many as 450,000 people may be affected, according to the CDC. With a particularly strong tick season on the horizon and climate change continuing to worsen, the illness is likely to become more common.

What are the symptoms of AGS?

Alpha-gal is a molecule that is “naturally produced in the bodies of most mammals but not in people” and also “found in the saliva (spit) of some ticks,” said the CDC. When someone gets bitten by a tick, the alpha-gal molecule can be transferred to their blood. Then the “body’s natural defenses, or immune system, can identify alpha-gal as a threat and trigger an allergic reaction.” The reaction occurs “after people eat red meat or are exposed to other products made from mammals.”

Unlike most other allergies, which tend to produce reactions almost immediately, “those with alpha-gal may not experience a reaction to a hamburger for four or six hours” because of “how alpha-gal binds to fats, taking longer to absorb,” said The New York Times. Symptoms may manifest in different ways depending on the person, including “hives, angioedema, gastrointestinal distress and life-threatening anaphylaxis,” said an article published in the Journal of Medical Entomology. There is currently no cure for AGS, and the most common treatment is avoiding “not only red meat and dairy but also vaccines, antivenoms and medications made with components derived from mammals,” said Entomology Today.

AGS can be diagnosed through a blood test, but experts advise getting tested only when someone experiences a reaction and not just after being bitten by a tick. “It’s perfectly clear that 50% of people who have a positive test have no reactions whatsoever,” Thomas Platts-Mills, an allergist at the University of Virginia School of Medicine, said to the Times. The factors that determine whether someone has a reaction are still unknown. Along with some people being asymptomatic, “there are so many false positives,” Scott Commins, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, said to the Times. “So testing after any tick bite would lead to a lot of people avoiding red meat unnecessarily.”

How common is it?

It will likely be a bad year for ticks, “with an unusually high number of bites already reported across the country,” said The Associated Press. “If you have a lot of exposures, there will probably be more cases of tick-related infections,” Alina Filozov, an infectious disease doctor at Middlesex Hospital in Middletown, Connecticut, told the outlet. In the U.S., AGS is “primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick” and less commonly with the bite of a “blacklegged tick or a western blacklegged tick,” said the CDC. There have been at least 12 tick species linked to alpha-gal syndrome globally, and the disease has been found on six continents.

The best way to prevent AGS is to avoid being bitten by ticks in the first place. Steer clear of heavily wooded or grassy areas, wear light colors and use an approved insect repellent. If you do find a tick on yourself or your pet, remove it immediately.

Climate change is expanding the range of these insects. “Ticks like warm, humid weather, and more can be seen after a mild winter,” said the AP. “More deer and mice available for them to feed on may also factor.” Along with AGS, ticks can spread other diseases, including Lyme disease and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.

You hear the terms buyer’s market and seller’s market get tossed around a lot when the real estate market changes, whether due to varying supply and demand or mortgage rate movements. But if you are getting ready to enter the market, either as a buyer preparing to make a purchase or a seller listing their property, what does it actually mean for your homebuying — or selling — experience?

These terms effectively give you a clue as to which party will likely have the upper hand in transactions. If you are a buyer entering a buyer’s market, you can generally expect more options to choose from and greater leverage in negotiations. A seller’s market, by contrast, gives the seller the advantage, meaning they may get a better sales price, will have to offer fewer credits and repairs to seal the deal and even see bidding wars.

What is the difference between a buyer’s vs. seller’s market?

A buyer’s market happens when the “number of homes for sale exceeds the number of active buyers,” said Realtor.com. When this is the balance in the market, it typically “gives buyers more leverage as sellers compete to outshine one another.”

In a seller’s market, the exact opposition is true: there “will be more buyers than homes for sale, so sellers have more control over the transaction,” said Yahoo Finance. As a result, buyers have a “lower chance of getting a home they want for a lower price, negotiating for repairs or receiving closing cost assistance from sellers,” and they may even “have to compete for a property in a bidding war.”

How can you tell if it is a buyer’s or a seller’s market?

One of the biggest tipoffs is home inventory. The “larger the inventory, the more likely it is that your local area is in the midst of a buyer’s market,” said Rocket Mortgage.

Another way to gauge market conditions is by digging into homes that were recently sold. For instance, “if you find that homes generally have been selling above their asking price, it’s a good indication that you’re in a seller’s market,” said Rocket Mortgage. If homes are sitting on the market for a while and there are price cuts, that suggest a buyer’s market.

Lastly, mortgage rates and where they have been headed can be an indicator. “Rising interest rates make it more expensive for buyers to borrow money for a mortgage loan,” which can mean “first-time buyers and those on tighter budgets are often pushed out of the market entirely, reducing overall demand,” said HomeLight, a home buying and selling platform. Lower rates, on the other hand, will have more buyers ready to make moves.

Is it bad to sell in a buyer’s market, and vice versa?

Not necessarily, as long as you understand the implications and adjust your expectations and strategy accordingly. If you want to sell your house in a buyer’s market, “consider your list price carefully, compare the numbers for a good estimate of what the sale proceeds will be and be ready for a possibly slower sale,” said Yahoo Finance.

On the flip side, as a seller in a buyer’s market, it is important to balance making a competitive offer without compromising on your budget or eventual home purchase. In this situation, a knowledgeable real estate agent, a mortgage preapproval, an earnest money deposit and some flexibility around a closing date can go a long way. Patience is also key, since “during a seller’s market, sometimes buyers lose out on homes they’re interested in,” said Rocket Mortgage, and they may have to make multiple offers and commit to a longer search.

The Chernobyl disaster occurred when technicians at the power station, near Pripyat in the north of Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, ran a test on reactor number four to simulate shutting it down during an electricity blackout. A combination of reactor design flaws and technician errors meant that it overheated, leading to a power surge, triggering an explosion.

The reactor's 192 tonnes of uranium fuel partially melted, destroying the reactor core. Graphite blocks inside caught fire, and the resulting explosion blew the reactor's 1,000-tonne concrete and steel lid into the air, then destroyed much of the turbine hall. Radioactive material spewed into the environment: iodine, strontium, caesium and some plutonium.

The World Nuclear Association says the disaster was caused by a “flawed” reactor design and lax safety – both consequences of “Cold War isolation”.

How did the authorities respond?

About 1,000 emergency workers and power station staff, largely untrained and poorly protected, were brought in during the first days of the accident to put out the fire. Soviet officials initially remained in denial; unable to comprehend the gravity of the situation and desperate to contain the bad publicity. But in early May, with the reactor fire still burning, and high radiation levels detected across Europe, the authorities moved to drastic action. A 30km exclusion zone was imposed. Bags of sand were dropped onto the reactor from the open doors of helicopters (analysts now think this did more harm than good).

When the fire finally stopped, men climbed onto the roof to clear radioactive debris. Many suffered from acute radiation sickness as a result. In total, at least 600,000 clear-up personnel (“liquidators”) from all over the Soviet Union were involved in the clean-up. During 1986, a huge concrete “sarcophagus” structure was built to confine the radioactive materials at the explosion site. This was largely successful; estimates suggest that at least 80% of the original radioactive material remains inside the reactor. (In 2017 a new structure was completed at a cost of £1.3 billion.)

What were the immediate effects?

The official death toll is just 31; two workers at the plant were killed that day. But in 2005, a UN report suggested a total of 4,000 people would eventually die because of radiation exposure. According to UN reports, 134 people, mostly plant workers and emergency workers, received a confirmed diagnosis of Acute Radiation Sickness.

Radiation destroys cell walls and other key molecular structures within the body. Symptoms can begin within one or two hours and may last for several months; they include vomiting, diarrhoea, headache, fever, dizziness, hair loss, and blood in vomit and stools.

The human cost of the disaster was documented by Svetlana Alexievich, a Belarusian journalist, who interviewed some 500 eyewitnesses for her 1997 book “Chernobyl Prayer”. One of the most harrowing stories concerns a woman who stayed at the bedside of her dying husband, a firefighter. She described watching his body decay, his skin crack, boils develop. When she touched him – against doctors' orders – his skin came away in her hands.

And the wider effects?

Chernobyl is one of only two nuclear accidents rated at the maximum severity on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan. The longer-term effects have been mind-boggling in scale. Some 350,000 people had to be evacuated; about 500 hectares of forest turned red and died; roughly 15 million hectares of land were contaminated.

At least 5% of the reactor's radioactive fuel is estimated to have been carried into the air over Ukraine, Belarus and Russia – and the rest of Europe. Over 20% of Belarus's land was affected. Radioactive clouds spread, causing panic as far away as Germany and Britain; millions of litres of milk were dumped; livestock was destroyed or banned from sale. Around 5,000 thyroid cancers have been linked to iodine contamination of milk supplies by the accident, 15 of them fatal.

Chernobyl is often described as the most expensive disaster in history, with an estimated cost of $180 billion (£133 billion) for Ukraine alone. By 2003, about 3.3 million Ukrainians were receiving benefits as Chernobyl “victims”.

What is in Chernobyl now?

The Chernobyl exclusion zone encompasses the 2,600 sq km area within the 30km radius. It is under military control, and public access is restricted to prevent contamination. Today, the zone is one of the most radioactively contaminated areas on Earth; the reactor is still smouldering. It draws significant scientific interest for the high levels of radiation exposure in the environment – and, until the war, was popular with disaster tourists. Due to the lack of human activity, it has become a thriving nature sanctuary, with some of the highest biodiversity and thickest forests in all Ukraine. European bison, golden eagles, lynx and elk inhabit the area.

How did the disaster affect nuclear policy?

It kickstarted a global push for stricter nuclear regulation. Governments were nervous because similar reactors were in use around the world. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN-affiliated agency, was tasked with improving international safety standards for reactor designs, and with coordinating long-term radiation monitoring. The agency does not have the power to enforce these rules, but the disaster motivated many countries to comply with regulations.

Politically, the effects were also very significant. Chernobyl destroyed public trust and exposed systemic failures within the USSR, particularly in Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev maintained the accident was a more important factor in the fall of the Soviet Union than his programmes of liberal reform. Oddly enough, at least one of Chernobyl's other reactors remained in use until 2000.

When you are already scrolling on your phone, your credit card information is saved and shipping is free, it can be a little too easy to click ‘buy.’ Even if that purchase is small, these shopping slip-ups can quickly add up. Over time, they may push your well-laid financial plans off track.

Such incongruence between actions and intentions can also bring about feelings of guilt. According to a study by Liquid Web, “14% of shoppers have bought something within one minute of seeing an ad, and 85% regret an impulsive online purchase,” said Investopedia.

So how can you keep your focus on the big picture, instead of falling for the short-term high of shopping? Friction maxxing may be the answer.

What is friction maxxing?

In essence, friction maxxing refers to the practice of adding friction, or some degree of difficulty or inconvenience, to a task. The practice can apply in practically any area — it may look like “cooking from scratch instead of ordering a delivery, finding your way using road signs instead of just plugging in the [GPS] or reading a book rather than half-listening to the audio version of it,” said The Guardian.

The point is not to make your life harder, but rather to cause you to slow down and be more intentional about your time and choices. When it comes to finances, that might mean deleting your saved payment information from your favorite shopping sites, so you are forced to pause for a moment, get up and get your physical credit card; during this time, you could reevaluate whether the purchase really aligns with your broader financial goals.

How can adding friction help you spend less?

When spending “feels easy, it grows quickly,” so the idea is that by “adding small inconveniences, known as ‘friction,’” it “gives your brain a moment to assess whether a purchase is worth it,” said Empeople Credit Union. During this pause, you gain a little bit of space to more deliberately weigh your decision to purchase, and you may ultimately decide against it.

Course-correcting these seemingly small decisions can add up. While “each decision may add only a few dollars to a receipt,” when it reoccurs “over weeks and months, these minor deviations can total hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year,” said Yahoo Finance.

You can also introduce friction around your exposure to spending opportunities. After all, if you do not even know an item exists, you cannot feel tempted to buy it. After committing to “block social media and shopping apps from 5 to 9 p.m. on weekdays,” one finance writer reported cutting their spending “by $300 compared with the previous month,” which they then put into their family’s “sinking funds, rather than let it slip away toward impulse purchases,” said NerdWallet.

What are some easy ways to add friction to your financial life?

If you are intrigued by the idea of financial friction maxxing, there are some easy ways to institute it:

• Delete saved payment information
• Turn off one-click purchasing
• Get rid of shopping apps
• Cut back on time spent scrolling and on social media
• Institute a waiting period, such as 24 hours or even a week, before making a purchase

The Department of Justice is throwing hot charcoal on the meatpacking industry’s grill, as the agency has reportedly opened an antitrust investigation that could have wide-ranging implications for the beef market. The probe, which comes following repeated pressure from President Donald Trump, is happening as beef prices continue to rise, causing consumers to have a negative view of the economy.

What is the investigation about?

The DOJ is looking into whether “large meatpackers that supply American consumers engaged in criminal anticompetitive conduct,” according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the investigation. The probe is “looking at all of the major companies that sell beef in the U.S.” Four companies currently control 85% of the country’s beef market share: the U.S.-based Cargill and Tyson Foods, and the Brazilian-owned JBS and National Beef.

The crux of the investigation is whether these companies “reached illegal agreements over how they purchase cattle from ranchers,” said Bloomberg. The Justice Department reportedly believes beef companies could be doing this to cut costs, as “beef processors have been losing money for the last 20 months as they pay producers higher prices for cattle.” The investigation appeared to come at Trump’s behest. The president said in November 2025 he would “order the Justice Department to investigate the meatpacking industry for alleged collusion,” said Axios.

Other food companies, like McDonald’s, have also accused “big beef packers of collusion and price-gouging,” said The Guardian. As of now, the probe remains a noncriminal investigation. None of the companies or their employees “have been accused of any wrongdoing and probes don’t always lead to charges or lawsuits being filed,” said Bloomberg. JBS “isn’t aware of any criminal investigation” and “operates in a highly regulated industry and is committed to complying with all applicable regulations,” a spokesperson for the company told the Journal. Cargill, Tyson Foods and National Beef haven’t commented.

What is the bigger picture?

Questions about the beef industry aren’t new, as ranchers have “long complained about anticompetitive conduct by the four companies,” said Bloomberg. Evidence of consolidation within the beef industry is “reflected in sharply increased spreads between cattle prices and wholesale beef prices,” said a U.S. Department of Agriculture report from 2024, with “stronger evidence of market power in the meatpacking industry.”

But a criminal investigation perhaps beginning “raises the stakes considerably for the companies and their executives, who face the prospect of steep fines and prison time,” said Bloomberg. A prior investigation “into alleged price-fixing during the Covid-19 pandemic closed without action.” The current high beef prices are “driven mostly by structural factors,” Dennis Follmer, the chief investment officer at Montis Financial, told Axios. Consumers “shouldn’t expect near-term relief.”

The prospect of Trump becoming directly involved due to rising prices remains on the table, as the president’s approval rating on the cost of living has been consistently falling throughout 2026. When Trump called for the DOJ to investigate meatpackers in November 2025, the average price of ground beef was $6.54 per pound, up 91 cents year-to-year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. It has continued rising since then and is currently $6.70 per pound.

Prosecutors in El Salvador have opened a mass trial of 486 alleged members of the infamous MS-13 gang on charges ranging from homicide and femicide to extortion and arms trafficking.

They have been accused of more than 47,000 crimes between 2012 and 2022, including an estimated 29,000 homicides. These trials encapsulate President Nayib Bukele’s “iron-fist approach” to fighting organised crime, said The Associated Press, in a country that has been in a state of emergency for four years.

But mass trials have been criticised by human rights organisations, including a group of UN experts who claim they “undermine the exercise of the right to defence and the presumption of innocence of detainees”. Many are held in custody for years before their trial, facing blanket rulings from unknown judges.

What is MS-13?

The MS stands for Mara Salvatrucha, thought to be a combination of “Mara” (“gang”), “Salva” (a shortening of Salvador) and “trucha” (“which translates roughly into street smarts”), said the BBC. “The 13 represents the position of M in the alphabet.”

The gang was formed “on the street corners of Los Angeles” in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants who had fled civil war, said Sky News. It only spread to Central America when the members were deported from the US.

Donald Trump designated the group a terrorist organisation last year and made “deportation agreements” with El Salvador to “exchange prisoners affiliated with the gang and others”.

The main aim of the mass trial is to target the “ranfla” – the “highest echelon” – of the gang, said The Times. Alongside its rival gang, Barrio 18, MS-13 at one stage controlled up to 80% of El Salvadoran territory through “extortion, drug dealing, contract killings and arms trafficking”. Prosecutors allege that the gang’s attempts to gain complete control amounted to a “parallel state, undermining national sovereignty”.

“Over three decades” Bukele’s government estimates the gangs have killed around 200,000 people, including many listed as disappeared.

Has a trial like this happened before?

The first “collective” trial of this magnitude took place in March 2025, said AP. At its conclusion, 52 members of Barrio 18 were convicted, with one individual sentenced to 245 years in prison.

In November, a similar trial found 45 members of a rival faction, Barrio 18 Sureños, guilty of several crimes and “handed down a 397-year prison sentence to one leader”.

What is the criticism?

Bukele’s “crackdown has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organisations”, said The Times. There is significant risk that, given the limited evidence specific to individuals, mass trials risk convicting innocent people.

Human Rights Watch estimated that El Salvador’s prison population has reached 118,000, “more than double the country’s capacity”. Set against “significantly worsening already poor prison conditions”, nearly 2% of the country’s entire population was incarcerated, “among the highest rates in the world”.

More than 500 people have already died in state custody under Bukele, and there have been reports of torture, said Agence France-Presse. Bukele has also acknowledged that “at least 8,000 innocent people” have been arrested under the crackdown, and have since been released, said AP.

Who is behind this?

President Bukele’s stance on criminal gangs has “made him the most popular elected head of state in the world”, said The Times. According to official figures released by his government, the rate of homicides fell from 7.8 per 100,000 people in 2022 to 1.3 last year, said Reuters.

Trump is a close ally. He said he had “the best relationship” with Bukele after the El Salvador president’s visit to the White House in 2025, said The Telegraph, despite previously accusing Bukele of sending MS-13 gang members to the US. Trump also signed a deal with Bukele last year, paying El Salvador between $6 million (£4.5 million) and $15 million (£11.3 million) to hold deportees in its prisons – “seemingly with little due process”.

What will happen next?

At the beginning of the trial, the judge stated that armed groups had disturbed “the peace of the Salvadoran population and the security of the state” for decades, and would be tried “with the full force of the law”.

Of the defendants, 413 of them are being held at the Terrorism Confinement Center (“Cecot”) in Tecoluca, and will watch proceedings on a screen. Cecot, a maximum-security prison built by Bukele in 2023, has “become a symbol of his controversial security policies”, said AP. The other 73 remain at large and will be tried in absentia.

Prosecutors say they have “overwhelming evidence” and will seek the maximum permitted sentence, said The Times. The trial could last up to six months.

It is likely that somewhere along the way, you have heard about emergency funds and the importance of having one of your own. These cash stashes will be waiting for you when the unexpected happens, like a surprise medical bill or a burst pipe in your house. But what about those costs that you technically know are coming somewhere down the line, but they are not yet part of your regular, day-to-day budget?

This could be a roof you realize will eventually need replacing or a new set of tires after you hit a certain mileage on your car. In these situations, a sinking fund can be exactly what you need to ensure you have the cash on hand, without depleting the funds necessary for your everyday expenses or wiping out your emergency stores.

What is a sinking fund?

A sinking fund is “another name for money you save a little bit at a time for a specific purchase in the future,” said NerdWallet. This can refer to “infrequent bills,” such as your pet’s annual teeth cleaning or mulching your yard, or a “large one-time expense,” like a down payment on a home or an engagement ring, said CNBC Select.

The type of expenses that make sense to cover with a sinking fund are those that are “generally more predictable than emergencies but less so than recurring spending, and they don’t occur often,” said NerdWallet.

When can a sinking fund come in handy?

Having a sinking fund adds a forward-looking component to your budget, allowing you to earmark specific savings goals and start stashing away money for them. This ensures the expected funds are there when you need them, which can prevent you from falling back on credit, dipping into your other savings buckets or derailing your regular monthly budget when the expense arises.

While you can dedicate a sinking fund to any range of expenses, some of the most common uses include:

• Home maintenance and repairs
• Expensive appliances or electronics
• Furniture
• Vehicle maintenance and repairs
• Pet care costs
• Birthdays and holidays
• Vacations
• Wedding and engagement expenses
• Baby expenses

How can you start a sinking fund?

What sets a sinking fund apart from other savings is that it “focuses on one specific savings goal” rather than being more broadly for the future and any emergencies that may arise, said Discover. As such, one of the first steps in setting up a sinking fund is determining what goal you are putting away money for, how much you will need and what your deadline for meeting your goal will be.

From there, determine how much is necessary to set aside each month to meet your goal by the assigned deadline, as well as where you will be putting those funds. Ideally, “you want your sinking funds to earn as much interest as possible while remaining somewhat accessible,” said CNBC Select. A high-yield savings account can be a good candidate for this, especially given that “some banks allow you to open a main savings account with multiple subaccounts,” said SoFi, making it even easier to know which amount is going where.

Rotavirus, a potentially deadly gastrointestinal pathogen, is being transmitted at an alarming rate across the country. Young children are the most at risk of severe infection. Experts believe that reduced vaccination rates are behind the trend.

How bad is rotavirus?

Every year, rotavirus is “responsible for 20 to 60 deaths in the U.S., more than 400,000 doctor visits, more than 200,000 emergency room visits and between 55,000 and 70,000 hospitalizations among children under 5,” said Newsweek. Infection rates are higher now than they were at the same time last year, according to CDC data. The percentage of positive rotavirus tests across the country has been steadily increasing since January. “We’re seeing a lot of rotavirus in wastewater right now,” which indicates that “there are high levels of infections in these communities,” Marlene Wolfe, the program director of WastewaterScan, said to NBC News.

Rotavirus can cause gastroenteritis with a “fever above 101 degrees Fahrenheit and vomiting for one to two days, followed by frequent diarrhea,” said Discover Magazine. While “anyone can get infected, the virus spreads particularly quickly among babies and young children via the fecal-oral route through contaminated hands and surfaces.” The virus can lead to severe dehydration, which may require hospitalization. At its peak, there can be “upwards of 20-plus episodes” of diarrhea per day, Stephanie DeLeon, the associate chief medical officer and a pediatric hospitalist at Oklahoma Children’s OU Health, said to NBC News. In the worst cases, the virus is deadly, especially among younger children.

As with most viruses, there is no specific treatment once someone develops gastroenteritis from rotavirus. Doctors “only provide supportive therapy,” including “hydration such as electrolyte drinks or IV fluids in the case of dehydration, small and frequent feeding as well as fever control with medications like Tylenol,” said Forbes. Usually, the symptoms resolve in approximately a week.

Why is it spreading?

Some of the surge in infection is because rotavirus “follows a fairly regular annual pattern, much like influenza,” Ben Lopman, a professor of epidemiology at Emory University, said to Newsweek. “What’s driving this year’s surge is the same basic biology it always has been: A highly contagious virus circulating through communities where young children are in close contact.” The disease tends to peak in late winter and early spring and decline in the summer.

While there is no treatment for rotavirus after infection, the disease can be prevented. There are two different oral vaccinations available against the pathogen. Given during infancy, “7 out of 10 children who get the vaccine will be protected from getting infected, and 9 out of 10 will be protected against severe disease,” said Forbes. Unfortunately, “doctors have fresh concerns that declining vaccinations could lead to more severe illness and a higher surge in the coming years,” said NBC News. Most of those infected and hospitalized are “either too young to get the vaccine, haven’t received all the doses yet or are unvaccinated.”

Vaccine hesitancy may have made this year’s surge worse. Parents refusing to vaccinate their children has also increased cases of diseases like measles and whooping cough. “As someone working on this virus for more than a decade, I ultimately want rotavirus to become less relevant over time, with continued reductions in severe disease and mortality,” Siyuan Ding, a professor of molecular microbiology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said to Newsweek. “It is therefore concerning to see case numbers trending upward this year.”

“A little blue pill is creating a stir in Hollywood,” said Dipa Kamdar, senior lecturer in pharmacy practice at Kingston University, London, on The Conversation. “And no, it’s not Viagra.”

For several years now, celebrities have been singing the praises of propranolol, a beta-blocker originally designed for heart conditions which also helps with anxiety. Kristen Bell, Rachel Sennott and Natasha Rothwell have all mentioned taking the pill at red-carpet events over the past year. Four years ago, Khloé Kardashian admitted she borrows her mother’s medication to calm her nerves, while Robert Downey Jr started his 2024 Golden Globe acceptance speech by saying he had just taken a beta-blocker “so this will be a breeze”.

These A-lister endorsements have led, in part, to a surge in prescriptions, especially among young women and girls, with propranolol now the “go-to pill for dealing with all sorts of stressful situations, from public speaking to first dates”, said The Wall Street Journal.

How does it work?

The beta-blocker was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1967 for the treatment of heart problems including high blood pressure, arrhythmia (irregular heart rate) and angina. But it soon became clear the drug also reduced physical responses to anxiety, such as high heart rate, sweating, nausea and trembling hands. And while other medications prescribed for anxiety, like certain anti-depressants, can take weeks to work, propranolol can take effect within an hour.

Unlike drugs like Xanax or Valium, which “act directly on the brain and can leave people feeling sedated, foggy, or zoned out”, propranolol doesn’t address anxiety’s “underlying roots” but “blocks its physical symptoms” by slowing down the heart rate and lowering blood pressure, said The Boston Globe.

“It’s a beta-blocker, not a bravery booster”, said Kamdar. “It won’t fix your fear of public speaking or make you smoother on a first date – though it might stop your hands from shaking while you try.”

How widely is it used?

In the US, overall prescriptions are up 28% from 2020, while NHS England figures show an increase of 37.6% over the past decade, according to data seen by The Observer. The biggest rise in the UK has been among girls aged between 12 and 17 – up from 618,813 prescriptions in 2015 to more than 1.1 million in 2025. The second highest increase in use – at 81.7% – is among women aged 18 to 23.

The increasing popularity of beta-blockers among young women and girls “points to a generation that has grown up with the pressures of social media and an epidemic of gender-based violence, as well as the isolating effects of Covid”, said the outlet.

As well as its speed and availability, its appeal may also lie in the fact that, unlike other mental health medication, “culturally” propranolol is “portrayed lightly – as if it’s nothing more than a breath mint”, said The Boston Globe.

Are there any risks?

Compared to Xanax or Valium, propranolol is a non-addictive and low-risk medication. However, “it’s not without risks or side-effects”, said Kamdar on The Conversation. Because propranolol works to reduce blood pressure and heart rate, common side-effects include dizziness, fatigue, cold hands and feet, and vivid dreams. “More serious risks – though rare – include heart failure, breathing difficulties and allergic reactions”.

In the UK, where propranolol is licensed to treat anxiety, its effects have been “more scrutinised”, said the WSJ. The General Pharmaceutical Council has highlighted the risk of overdose following the death of a 17-year-old girl in 2023, who died after taking propranolol along with other pain-relief medication. The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence anxiety-management guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness and antidepressants as initial treatments.

Roadtripping offers a unique blend of spontaneity and flexibility that many other forms of travel simply do not have. But when it comes to cost, this kind of expense can be a little less clear-cut than, say, simply purchasing an airline ticket, where you know exactly what you are paying upfront.

That variability also means that there is more room to find ways to save. And especially given the sky-high cost of gas lately — not to mention inflation — saving is more important than ever. Here are four ways to spare your wallet on an upcoming road trip.

1. Plan ahead as much as possible

Nailing down all the angles of your trip ahead of time can save you both a lot of headaches and a significant amount of money. Before you set out, decide how much you can comfortably budget for your trip. Then, plan the route you will take and where you will stop along the way, including for sightseeing, lodging and food.

Advanced planning can also allow you to cut down on certain costs, which can leave more wiggle room for other fun add-ins. For example, “you can often secure a better rate by booking in advance (and online), than by showing up without a reservation or booking last minute,” said SoFi.

2. Make the most of rewards

It is hard to think of a road trip these days without considering the cost of gas. While fuel is an unavoidable expense (unless you drive an EV), there are ways you can portion less of your total road trip budget toward it. Consider gas-saving hacks, such as paying in cash, joining gas station fuel rewards programs or using a gas rewards credit card. There are also apps you can use to find the cheapest spots to fill up nearby.

Rewards do not have to be reserved for just gas, either. Booking with the “same hotel chain as often as possible and signing up for their member loyalty (or ‘points’) program may net you a free night after a few stays,” said SoFi.

3. Get a tune-up before you go

Your vehicle itself is another major determinant of fuel efficiency. Simple tasks like aligning and filling your tires, as well as changing your oil, can help you use a little less fuel and put less wear and tear on your vehicle, which can add up when you are racking up the miles on a long road trip.

Taking your car in for review can also help avoid issues down, or rather on, the road, which can be costly — and cause you to lose out on valuable vacation time. The good news is, “if you happen to need a standard oil change before your trip, many service centers will offer a free multi-point checkup of your vehicle and examine fluid levels, the battery, tire pressure, brakes and more,” said Discover.

4. Pack smart

How you pack your car can also have a major impact on overall costs. Put simply, the “heavier your vehicle, the worse its fuel efficiency,” which means that the “more luggage and gear you carry, the more fuel your vehicle will use,” said Kiplinger.

Also, think carefully about what you decide to dedicate your precious trunk space to. By “packing a cooler with water bottles, drinks, hand-held snacks and sandwiches,” for instance, “you can end up saving a sizable chunk of cash by not having to buy drinks and snacks at rest stops, vending machines and drive-throughs,” said SoFi.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is “close” to securing a $10 billion (£7.4 billion) fundraising deal from investors for his AI lab, codenamed Project Prometheus, said the Financial Times. The deal would make the company, which aims to explore how AI systems can be applied across physical industries, “one of the best-financed early-stage start-ups globally”, and marks the first time Bezos has served in an operational role since stepping down as chief executive of Amazon in 2021.

Project Prometheus will propel Bezos into the ranks of the AI titans heading firms with multi-billion-dollar valuations, such as Anthropic, OpenAI and Palantir. With the industry elite divided by ongoing legal feuds and conflicting political ideologies, the personalities of the individual CEOs look set to shape the course of AI as much as the technology itself. Here are the five names to watch.

Sam Altman

The OpenAI CEO is more and more becoming the “protagonist” of our times, said Lily Isaacs in The Observer. As with Faust, Victor Frankenstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer, we are beginning to “share the uneasy feeling that enlightenment carries within it the seeds of catastrophe”.

Launched by OpenAI in November 2022, ChatGPT is the chatbot that has “redefined the standards of artificial intelligence”, said Forbes. As the company nears a possible value of more than $1 trillion (£740 billion), “one of the biggest so-called risk factors” to the company is “Altman himself”, said Dave Lee in Bloomberg. Altman was fired by the board in November 2023, only to be reinstated days later.

Reading the year-and-a-half-long investigation by Ronan Farrow and Andrew Marantz in The New Yorker, the “overriding impression” of Altman is that he is a “borderline sociopath”, said Jeremy Kahn in Fortune. The piece raises questions on whether Altman “actually cares about AI safety” or whether his rhetoric is simply a “convenient pose” to win over funders and regulators.

Dario Amodei

“We should not deny that the disruption is going to happen” as AI use increases, Anthropic CEO Amodei told John Thornhill in the FT, but AI can only “diffuse at the speed of trust”. Trust, however, said Thornhill, is “in short supply”. “As the current frontrunner of the AI pack, Amodei is certain to come under increasingly fierce scrutiny.”

It is clear that he “wants to position himself as one of the good guys in the AI debate”, but that “grates with many Silicon Valley critics”, who argue that “his principles align with Anthropic’s commercial interests”. Amodei founded Anthropic – the creators of Claude – in 2021 alongside six other former OpenAI employees, including his sister Daniela, who is president. The company has recently raised $30 billion (£22.2 billion) at a $380 billion (£281.3 billion) valuation and is reportedly “heading for a giant stock market flotation later this year”.

Central to Amodei’s brand of Anthropic is that it is “fundamentally safer than that of its rivals”, said The Wall Street Journal. Indeed, that was one of the main reasons Amodei left OpenAI, citing “concerns about safety”. In recent months, he has also “compared the legal battle between Altman and Elon Musk to the fight between Hitler and Stalin”, as well as calling a $25 million (£18.5 million) donation by OpenAI President Greg Brockman to pro-Trump super PAC (independent expenditure-only political action committee) Maga Inc. “evil”.

Jensen Huang

Although the head of Nvidia may not be driving the AI revolution directly, his company is facilitating it, acting as the “hardware backbone” of the movement, said Business Insider. Huang’s “chip empire” is effectively “powering the generative AI boom”.

He founded the company in 1993, and has served as CEO ever since. Under his leadership, Nvidia – whose projected revenue opportunity for its artificial intelligence chips could reach $1 trillion (£740 billion) or more by the end of 2027 – has expanded partnerships with Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud to accelerate AI development. Nvidia’s hardware and software “now sit at the centre of nearly every major foundation-model program”, said Business Insider.

AI is “gonna create more jobs in the end”, Huang said during a recent panel at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, reported Fortune. “There’ll be more people working at the end of this industrial revolution than at the beginning of it.” He has previously commented that negative commentary surrounding AI is “extremely hurtful”, said Inc.

Huang is not without his quirks, having banned one-on-one meetings with staff who report directly to him, on the grounds they would “clog up his work schedule and slow him down”, said Fortune.

Alex Karp

Fewer people will have heard of the co-founder of Palantir, but to some he is the “scariest CEO in the world”, said Steve Rose in The Guardian.

The company recently released a 22-point “manifesto” summarising Karp’s recent book, “The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West”. In it, he extols the need for “hard power”, argues the inevitability of “AI weapons” and calls for the reversal of the “postwar neutering of Germany and Japan”. MPs have since called this a “parody of a ‘RoboCop’ film” and the “ramblings of a supervillain”. Arguably, what it does show is that “Karp views himself as not simply the head of a software company, but a pundit with important insights into the future of civilisation”, said Aisha Down and Robert Booth in The Guardian.

The company is “at the heart of many of the world’s pressing issues”, said The Guardian. Palantir has “multibillion-dollar contracts” with the US Army and Ice, as well as partnerships with the Israeli military and the Ministry of Defence, said Al Jazeera.

Some NHS staff are “refusing to work” on the health service’s Federated Data Platform, which is provided by Palantir, due to the company’s “role in US defence and immigration enforcement”, said the FT. Ministers are exploring the possibility of a “break clause” in the company’s seven-year £330 million NHS contract, signed in 2023.

Elon Musk

The founder of xAI and Grok, such is the strength of Musk’s conviction in AI, that he believes it will put “immortality within human reach”, said Fortune.

But the “rapid rise” of his tech company xAI’s has “raised concerns”, said Harry Booth in Time. There were accusations of pollution from the Colossus data centres’ temporary gas turbines, and the now-infamous update to Grok “praised Adolf Hitler as a ‘decisive leader’ and began creating graphic rape narratives”.

French prosecutors summoned Musk for a voluntary interview on Monday, which he did not attend, over “alleged abuse of algorithms and fraudulent data extraction” by his AI chatbot Grok, as well as the “creation of sexual deepfakes”, said France 24. This is part of an ongoing probe first opened in 2025, with the company’s offices raided by the Paris prosecutor’s cybercrime unit in February.

Musk is also locked in a legal feud with Altman – with whom he cofounded OpenAI – accusing Altman of deceiving him into donating $38 million (£28 million) towards the company with the promise that it would remain a non-profit, said Business Insider.

From brick-and-mortar behemoths to smaller online startups, there are a lot of options when it comes to banking. But banks, whether online or in-person, are not your only choice when choosing where to store your money. There are also credit unions to consider.

These financial institutions have a distinct member-owned and member-operated model that can confer a number of unique benefits to those who choose to join, from competitive rates and lower fees to a more personalized, community-focused feel. Increasingly, Americans are taking advantage. In 2025, credit unions “added 2.4 million members, bringing total membership to 144.7 million,” said CNBC Select, citing data from the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

What makes credit unions unique?

The biggest distinction between credit unions and banks is that credit unions are not-for-profit organizations that are owned and operated by their members, who elect a board of directors. Because of this model, any profits a credit union earns are returned to its members in the form of lower fees and higher rates. Banks, by contrast, are for-profit institutions that are owned by private owners or investors.

To have an account with a credit union, it is necessary to become a member. Beyond that, though, credit unions offer many of the same account types and services as banks. Deposits are typically federally insured, up to the same limits as with accounts at banks, though through the NCUA as opposed to the FDIC.

What are the benefits of a credit union?

Arguably, the “biggest benefit is better rates because they work for members, not outside investors,” said Bankrate. Not only do “credit union profits go back to members, who are also shareholders,” but they also “enjoy tax-exempt status as not-for-profit organizations,” which means they do not have to pay taxes on their profits as banks do. This can materially affect the yields they can offer and the amount they collect in fees. Often, at credit unions, you will find “higher savings account rates and lower loan rates,” as well as “better yields on certificates of deposit (called share certificates at credit unions) and more competitive rates on mortgages and auto loans,” said Bankrate.

Another area where credit unions can shine is customer service. “Focusing on a community of people, they tend to pride themselves in treating everyone fairly and personalizing service the best they can,” which may materialize as “looking beyond just your credit score when approving you for a loan or offering you access to assistance like financial counseling,” said CNBC Select.

Are there any drawbacks to credit unions?

While credit unions probably sound enticing, they are not always easy to join. “Some credit unions have very specific membership requirements, such as military- and company-based credit unions,” said NerdWallet, though there are many more to choose from that do have easier-to-meet requirements.

It is also worth keeping in mind that while a smaller size can confer a more personalized service feel, it may also limit what credit unions can provide. “Banks get higher customer satisfaction ratings for the number and location of ATMs and branches, compared to credit unions,” said Investopedia, citing the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. You may also find fewer account options and a more limited, or less sophisticated, digital presence.

The UK has rapidly decarbonised its energy sector, with emissions falling by about 54% since 1990. Fossil fuels supply only around a third of our electricity, but when it comes to the total energy mix – including heating, transport etc – we still rely heavily on oil and gas: they accounted for 74% of the total in 2024 (36.5% oil; 37.5% gas). And the nation is producing less of both than it once did.

In 1999, when production peaked on the UK Continental Shelf, Britain was a net exporter of oil, and was self-sufficient in gas. Today, only about 50% of UK oil comes from domestic sources; some 30% of the UK’s natural gas also comes from domestic sources. Whereas, of the imports: 76% of imported gas comes from Norway, 17% from the US, in the form of LNG, and 2% from the Persian Gulf.

Is there much oil and gas left?

The UK Continental Shelf (largely in the North Sea, but also in the Irish Sea) is a mature basin: over the past 60 years, its most accessible oil and gas – about 47.7 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) – has been extracted. Domestic production of oil and gas fell by 76% and 73% respectively between 2000 and 2024. Today there are over 280 active oil and gas fields, but 180 of these are expected to cease production by 2030. Estimates vary as to how much is left.

According to the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, there’s an estimated 2.3 billion BOE of recoverable oil and gas in the North Sea – enough to cover a sixth of the UK’s projected needs until its net-zero target date of 2050. Offshore Energies UK, an industry group, estimates there are around 7.5 billion BOE of oil. The North Sea Transition Authority, the industry regulator, is more cautious: it thinks the North Sea is home to 2.9 billion BOE of “proven and probable reserves” of oil and gas, with an extra 10.8 billion that may or may not be accessible.

How easily could it be recovered?

“Easy oil is over,” says Dr Mark Ireland, a geologist at Newcastle University. “What remains are smaller, sometimes more remote, and often more technically challenging or expensive resources and reserves.”

New exploration competes for investment with more accessible sources of hydrocarbons abroad, so the North Sea’s future depends on relatively high oil and gas prices, tax levels that aren’t too high and investor confidence. At present, a headline 78% tax rate and high costs mean British oil fields need global prices at nearly $40 (£29) a barrel just to break even, more than twice the threshold for Norway.

There are undeveloped fields, where oil or gas are confirmed but not yet produced. Furthest along is Jackdaw gas field, which could be connected to the UK within months; but that and Rosebank have not been approved.

Could more drilling lower prices?

Probably not. Oil and gas prices are set on international markets; and given the North Sea’s relatively small reserves, drilling there would not impact global prices. Nigel Topping, chair of the Climate Change Committee, says the best way to bring down bills is by “making clean electricity cheaper and reducing demand for oil and gas – not doubling down on declining resources”. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero wants to get Britain off “the roller-coaster of fossil fuel prices and onto homegrown power that we control”.

But might it be useful in other ways?

Yes. Advocates of further exploration point out that it would improve energy security: gas is pumped straight into the UK’s energy system, which insulates the nation from energy shocks, and potentially from price spikes such as the present one. Crucially, they point out, companies licensed to extract North Sea oil and gas would pay billions in tax – money that could be used, for instance, to lower domestic energy bills. (The industry has paid between £4.5 billion and £9 billion in annual tax in recent years.)

Domestic production is good for the balance of payments, too: the UK spent £36 billion on oil and gas imports in 2024, money lost to the British economy. And jobs are at stake. In the past decade, the North Sea workforce has shrunk from 450,000 to 160,000; the hope that jobs would be created in renewable energy to replace them has not yet been borne out.

Wouldn’t more drilling undermine our climate policies?

On the face of it, yes. Over the Jackdaw field’s lifetime, if you include both “operational” and “downstream” emissions (those caused by burning the gas), it will generate the equivalent of 35.8 million tonnes of carbon – nearly Scotland’s total emissions per year.

On the other hand, realistically, Britain is going to need a lot of oil and gas even if it does reach net zero by 2050, for domestic heating, transport – and to back up intermittent wind and solar. Shell, which owns Jackdaw, argues that “the UK will consume this gas, wherever it is produced” – and imported LNG from the US and Qatar is about a fifth more carbon intensive. Thus, arguably, domestic production can help reduce overall emissions.

So what should we do?

Opinion is divided. Reform UK, the Conservatives and most recently the SNP have all backed further drilling in the North Sea. Even Tara Singh, CEO of RenewableUK, the trade association for renewable power, has argued that the UK should continue, and even increase, North Sea gas production for energy security during the transition to net zero, to reduce imports. But Labour's 2024 election manifesto explicitly ruled out issuing new oil and gas exploration licences, although it does allow “tiebacks” for existing fields. (The Lib Dems and the Greens are also opposed.) The Energy Secretary Ed Miliband argues that Britain should show “climate leadership”, and that if it were to allow more licences and more drilling, it would undermine efforts to slow global warming and to move to low-carbon energy sources.

More than a quarter of women under 25 hold a negative view of men, according to a recent poll for The New Statesman, revealing what the magazine calls a “new radicalism”. This is seen as a challenge to the “prevailing narrative” that it is radicalised young men who are driving the so-called gender wars.

A “growing army” of female influencers broadly referred to as the femosphere is “urging” women to adopt a more cynical mindset when it comes to the opposite sex, “ditch their romantic delusions” and “be more aggressive in the dating game”, said Sarah Ditum in The Times.

What is the femosphere?

The term comes from the concept of the manosphere – a loose, online-based community of social media accounts, forums, blogs and podcasts that promote a view of “traditional masculinity”, with men in a dominant role and women subservient. “United in a belief that men are victims in a society that is designed for the benefit of women”, many of these spaces are “overflowing with rage”, said James Bloodworth in The Times.

The femosphere is a reaction to this with a message that “men are inherently selfish” and “only interested in one thing”, said Ditum. Manosphere terminology is gender-flipped: instead of “taking the red pill” (embracing the belief that society does not value men), the “pink-pill philosophy” encourages women to break with the egalitarian conventions of liberal feminism and see men as the “problem sex”.

What does that mean in practice?

Femosphere philosophy urges women to avoid casual relationships with men and to “adopt a more emotionally distant, calculated approach” to dating, said NBC News. Some of its content “frames” relationships as something to “win,” and advises followers to be “selective, guarded, and, at times, intentionally aloof”.

Mirroring the “pick-up artists” of the manosphere – those who offer manipulative strategies to persuade women to engage in sexual relationships – the femosphere has its “female dating strategists”, said The Guardian. Among them are the so-called “dark feminine” influencers who “encourage women to find men to support them financially” by cynically deploying behaviours associated with traditional femininity.

The appeal is understandable, feminist theorist Dr Sophie Lewis told the newspaper. The promise of liberal feminism that women could “have it all” has left many “saddled with both productive and reproductive labour”. The femosphere offers liberation from the “double shift”.

Is it a bad thing?

Femosphere influencers claim the movement is about “empowerment” of women rather than hatred of men, said NBC News. They see themselves as “pushing back against dating norms that have historically disadvantaged women” with a mindset that “encourages self-worth, boundaries, and higher standards in relationships”. But critics say it risks “turning dating into a transactional or manipulative experience”, where “authenticity” takes a “back seat to strategy”.

The “overarching belief” of the femosphere is the same as that of the manosphere, said The Guardian: “life is about survival of the fittest”. Men “will always hurt women and that will never change”, so “strategies are needed to conquer the opposite gender”.

A mysterious, shadowy group has been appearing online recently, and it has parents and law enforcement concerned about potential child exploitation. The group, known as 764, is a decentralized network operating across the United States and internationally, and while the FBI has urged parents and kids to be cautious, experts say tracking down the perpetrators is easier said than done.

What is 764?

This is an international online organization that “operates at the intersection of violent extremism, child sexual exploitation and other forms of extreme violence, including animal cruelty, self-harm and assisted suicide,” said the Global Network on Extremism & Technology. The group is part of a “loosely connected network” of similar organizations, including those with ominous names like the Maniac Murder Cult and No Lives Matter.

Those who identify with 764 are classified by experts as nihilistic violent extremists, people who are “characterized by the encouragement, glorification or engagement in acts of extreme violence without a coherent ideological framework,” said the nonpartisan think tank Vision of Humanity. Victims of 764 are often “pressured to send sexually explicit videos and photos, which are later used to blackmail them into extreme and violent acts,” said The Baltimore Banner. Most of them are victimized on online gaming platforms and social media websites.

Many of the victims “may be dealing with one or more vulnerabilities: neurodiversity, eating disorders, social isolation, mental illness, family problems” and are then exploited, said Vision of Humanity. Criminal cases linked to 764 have been opened in numerous states, including Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland and Texas, as well as Canada. The latter has since designated 764 as a terrorist group, and New Zealand did the same.

How is law enforcement fighting back?

The FBI and local police organizations are working to shut down the 764 groups, and “every FBI field office in the country is now involved in tracking the network,” said CBS News. At least 450 cases nationwide “are under investigation, with authorities classifying the activity as domestic terrorism.” The investigations have “documented how multiple perpetrators can become involved in a single victim’s exploitation,” making it harder for the victims to escape.

These investigations have led to some justice for victims of 764. In March 2026, a Maryland man pleaded guilty to federal child sexual abuse charges, and in November 2025, a Texas man pleaded guilty to racketeering and sexual exploitation. Both men were identified as 764 members. In March 2025, a Florida man was “sentenced to serve 84 months in federal prison for possessing child sexual abuse material,” said the Department of Justice. The man, a 764 member, owned devices containing over 8,300 images of child sexual abuse material, including “images and videos depicting the sexual abuse of infants and toddlers.”

In order to protect kids, the FBI is “urging families to look for behavioral changes that could signal a child is being targeted,” said CBS News. Kids who exhibit sudden mood swings or depression, as well as an “obsession with a new online ‘friend,’” could be warning signs that they are being victimized by 764. The FBI is also encouraging parents to “take proactive steps,” including monitoring children’s activity online and reporting suspicious behavior to the authorities.

Premium Bonds are one of the nation’s most-loved savings products, but falling prize rates mean savers could be better off putting their money elsewhere.

Government-backed National Savings & Investments has offered Premium Bonds since 1956, as a way to keep savings safe, with the “added thrill of a monthly cash prize draw”, said GoCompare.

But its prize rate dropped this month from 3.6% to 3.3%, cutting the chances of winning.

What are Premium Bonds?

Premium Bonds are a government-backed savings account. But rather than earning a guaranteed return in interest, savers are entered into a monthly prize draw with the chance to win a sum ranging from £25 to £1 million in cash.

The prize fund rate is the benchmark used by National Savings & Investments to set the number of prizes to be given away each month. The figure represents the rate of return for a bondholder with average luck. Some holders will earn a lot, some nothing.

But the odds of winning are so low that if everyone with £1,000 in Premium Bonds were lined up, “you’d need to walk past 60% of the line until you hit the first £25 winner”, said MoneySavingExpert,.

Pro: Safe, tax-free savings

Money in NS&I accounts is lent to the government, making it secure with Treasury-backed benefits. Money with other regulated financial institutions, such as banks, is protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) if a provider goes bust for up to £85,000.

As the maximum investment in Premium Bonds is £50,000, the protection level is the same as if you had an equal amount in a savings account.

Those who do strike lucky in the monthly draw can take the winnings tax-free, which could be a good way to safeguard savings from the taxman if you have used up all ISA and personal savings allowances.

Con: Low odds, won't beat inflation

The main allure of Premium Bonds is the chance to win up to £1 million, but even discounting the maximum, many of those with money in accounts will never win anything.

With the reduction in the prize rate, the odds of winning anything are 23,000 to one. The luck of the draw means a saver could win big, but they could also walk away with nothing at all.

Relying on luck and not fixed interest, over time and without a win, Premium Bonds savings may lose purchasing power as inflation rises. The poor odds of winning make it unlikely to beat such rises.

Pro: Easy withdrawal

They do offer the chance, no matter how small, of a holder becoming a millionaire, and savers get the monthly thrill of a prize draw. Plus there are no time limits, and money is free to be withdrawn at any time.

Con: Low returns

But Premium Bonds are “not the most lucrative choice” based on the return, said Fidelity. This is especially the case compared with top savings accounts, which may have suffered cuts in recent months, but still pay regular interest at more than 4%.

In contrast to Premium Bonds, savings accounts provide an “agreed rate of return”, said The Independent, plus savers may “attract higher long-term returns” by investing.

On the face of it, a subscription — whether to a streaming service, a newsletter or a food delivery app — may seem like it would not make or break your budget. But those small, recurring charges can quickly add up, especially if you have a lot of them.

Many money experts recommend subscriptions as one of the first places to look if you want to trim back. More than half of U.S. adults (55%) “plan to significantly decrease the subscriptions they have in 2026 in order to save money,” said NerdWallet, citing its recent survey. However, you do not necessarily have to go cold turkey and cancel everything to reap some savings. Here are four ways to save on your subscriptions.

1. Regularly reassess

One of the smartest ways to prevent subscriptions from taking too large a bite out of your budget is fairly simple: Keep track of what subscriptions you have, then revisit that list on a regular basis. Most Americans “likely couldn’t list all their subscriptions and prices off the top of their heads — not due to carelessness, but because they have so many, and they’re easy to forget about on autopay,” said NerdWallet.

By doing an audit, you may find you have been paying for a service you do not actually use anymore or even that you are accidentally paying for one twice. You can do this work manually, by going through bank and credit card statements, or there are also budgeting apps that can do the work of tracking, and sometimes even canceling, your subscriptions for you.

2. Commit for longer

This may seem counterintuitive if you are trying to cut back on subscriptions. But for those you really want to hold onto, making a longer-term commitment can make a difference, since “paying annually rather than monthly will usually work out cheaper,” said The Guardian. Just make sure to watch out for auto-renewal, when a price hike will sometimes sneak in.

3. Share with family or friends

When it comes to subscriptions, it is usually the more, the merrier. So if you have friends or family members who also use the same subscriptions you enjoy, ask if they want to go in on a plan together.

For instance, “Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube Premium and some live TV bundles all have family or group options that cost much less than what you’d pay on your own,” said GoBankingRates. Sometimes, though, there is fine print to be aware of — for example, some “services’ family plans might require all members to live at the same address.”

4. Pause and rotate

Just because you like to have a subscription does not mean you must have it all the time. Another hack that people sometimes use to save money is pausing (or totally canceling) one subscription, then picking up another for a bit.

How would this work? For saving on streaming services, you would “pick a couple that have shows premiering this month or shows that you’ve been meaning to watch,” then “keep those for a few months while you catch up on everything you want to watch,” said Kiplinger. After that, “cancel your subscription and move on to your next batch of two or three streaming services.” Once you are “caught up on movies and TV series on those, rinse and repeat.”

If you opt for a pause instead of a full cancel, you can keep your account there, frozen and waiting for you. Just make sure to maintain tabs on when it starts back up.

The field of Democratic hopefuls for the 2028 presidential campaign is expected to be massive, and candidates have a wide variety of voter issues to address. But they will likely focus on the cost-of-living crisis and questions related to the strengthening of American democracy. Plus, Democrats will be campaigning without President Donald Trump on the other side of the ballot for the first time in 12 years.

What are the issues?

Many Democrats who have been named as possible 2028 contenders, including the 2024 nominee, former Vice President Kamala Harris, have “sought to hammer the issue of affordability, almost exclusively, as they seek to win back power in Washington,” said The Washington Post. But these candidates have also been “challenged to couple that with a more full-throated description of their civil rights agenda,” especially in an era when many in the party say democratic principles are under threat.

Some of these contenders have “shifted their views on border security, DEI, crime, climate change, Covid-era lockdowns and more,” said Axios. Party pundits believe they lost to Trump in 2024 largely because voters “didn't like some of their left-leaning policies, not just how they were communicated,” and some have been arguing for a push back to the center. Others in the party have “openly questioned whether anyone other than a straight, white man can win the White House,” said Politico.

Lowering the cost of living will likely be the number one concern for voters heading to the polls. Several Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), have proposed tax plan changes that would raise taxes for the ultra-wealthy, but “as actual solutions to the forces pinching Americans’ pocketbooks,” these plans “largely misread the problem,” said Slate. If Democrats “really want to allay the country’s anxieties about the cost of living, tinkering with the tax code probably isn’t the way to do it.”

How will candidates approach them?

Even with affordability at the forefront, Democratic bigwigs have largely agreed that the “restoration of civil rights should be central in the next presidential election,” said the Post. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has “warned that Republicans are promoting voter suppression,” while Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) has “linked Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics to overall persecution of racial minorities.”

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg “accused the Trump administration of a ‘seek and destroy’ effort to harm disadvantaged communities,” said the Post, and Harris has “argued that the United States is losing its moral authority to stand up for human rights around the globe.” Many have also noted that Democrats are pushing to reengage with Black and Latino voters the party lost in 2024, and some see Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker as a solution to this problem, as he would “likely do well among Black voters,” said Bloomberg. He has the “brawn, the billions and the blue-collar affect to make him a contender.”

To communicate with voters, any good candidate will need to “speak directly and honestly to the electorate with tangible political platforms” and “tangible messages that are simply about what we’re going to do for you,” Maya Handa, the campaign manager for New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D), said at a Dartmouth University event. Democrats “should be recruiting candidates who are generationally talented communicators. But if we can’t, then I think we have to get more creative about it.”

Chancellor Rachel Reeves has proposed to increase defence spending by less than £10 billion over the next four years, despite the Armed Forces highlighting a £28 billion funding gap in the same period, and warning that Britain’s “national security and safety is in peril”, said The Times.

Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, a former Nato secretary-general, accused the Treasury in a speech on Tuesday of “vandalism” for inaction on defence. Leader of the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, Robertson said that for the UK “building deterrence will not be quick or cheap”. He added that “the public need to face that uncomfortable fact or suffer the consequences of not being safe in a very turbulent world.”

With a fragile ceasefire in the Middle East and continued conflict in Ukraine, many fear that the government’s pledges to defence will prove difficult to fulfil.

What has the government pledged?

Minister of State for the Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard stated in the House that the government was undertaking the “largest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War”, in response to Lord Robertson’s claims, but this is a “low bar”, said Ben Chu on BBC News. Defence spending has been on an “almost constant downward path since the fall of the Berlin Wall”.

The UK government currently spends 2.4% of GDP on defence, and Keir Starmer has committed to hitting 2.5% from April next year. This will then rise to 3% “at some point during the next parliament”, said The Times, though some critics think that the UK “should be hitting the 3% target now”.

More broadly, in June last year the government also committed to a Nato-wide agreement to spend 5% of GDP on national security. This figure will be split into 3.5% on “core defence” and 1.5% on “resilience and security” by 2035.

What state are the Armed Forces in?

In 1990, at the end of the Cold War, the Army had “153,000 regular soldiers in its ranks”, said the BBC. Now, it has less than half that number, just 73,790, according to the Ministry of Defence.

When it comes to recruitment, “Britain is at serious risk of being left behind” as other countries look to bolster their ranks, said Cahal Milmo and Jane Merrick in The i Paper. European neighbours Germany, Finland, Poland and France are “forging ahead with rearmament schemes” and programmes to increase numbers applying to their armed forces.

In the year to September 2025, the number of applications to the British Army Regular Forces (108,020) decreased by 36.6% compared to the previous year (170,380), according to the MoD.

In terms of equipment, in 1990, the Royal Navy had 13 destroyers and 35 frigates, which has since dropped to six and 11 respectively, said the BBC. Similarly, in 1990 the RAF had 300 combat jets. Though the current 137 Eurofighter Typhoons and minimum 37 Joint Strike Fighter F-35 Lightning IIs are “technically superior”, they are fewer in number. The use in combat of unmanned drones, which did not exist in 1990, is rising, and these also form part of the UK’s military aircraft.

How have recent ventures fared?

The “sad state” of the Armed Forces was illustrated by the delay in the deployment of HMS Dragon to the Middle East, said Richard Norton-Taylor in The Guardian. Even after the delay, the destroyer “needed further repairs almost as soon as it arrived”. It is the Navy’s “lone destroyer available to help protect British interests” in the Middle East, as the Navy’s “largest and most expensive” ships, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales – which “cost more than £6 billion” – were unavailable.

On land, ministers are facing “scrapping” the Ajax armoured vehicle programme, due to health concerns for its operators. Its issues are “so serious that vibration and noise have made soldiers training on it sick, with some suffering hearing loss”. More than £6 billion has been spent on the project, and it is “already eight years late”.

The government is also “under increasing pressure” to deliver its “long-delayed” Defence Investment Plan, said The i Paper. This promises to “overhaul Britain’s military capabilities with about £300 billion of investment over a decade”, said the outlet. Though expected to have been released last October, due to concerns over the MoD funding gap, it is not expected “until June at the earliest”.

What needs to be done?

The war in the Middle East should be a “wake-up call” for the UK to recognise its “vulnerabilities”, said George Robertson in Prospect. “There are many.” Public attention is mostly focused on the tangibles – such as planes, tanks and ships – but they are the “baubles on the Christmas tree”. “We need to focus on the tree itself” by addressing “crises in logistics, engineering, cyber, ammunition, training and medical resources”.

Climbing gas prices can put a major crimp in your budget, especially if you have a long commute or live in a car-reliant location. Just cents more per gallon can quickly add up to a higher total gas bill, and when the price per gallon skyrockets by a dollar or more — as it did in some areas in March amid the Iran war — that can make every fill-up feel like a nail-biter.

Common solutions to higher gas prices are often tied to driving habits, whether that means relying less on your car and more on public transportation, or finding someone to carpool with on your way to work. Those gas-saving strategies are certainly valid, but they are not your only option, particularly when gas prices are getting especially steep. Another hack might already be in your wallet, or could be a smart addition to it: a gas rewards credit card.

How can credit cards help offset higher gas prices?

Gas credit cards offer “rewards on fuel purchases, which can help reduce the cost,” said U.S. News & World Report. These rewards may come in the form of points or a percentage cash-back on every fuel purchase.

Many of today’s top gas credit cards “offer around a 3%-5% (or 3x-5x) return on your gas station spending,” said Yahoo Finance. And while this may not seem like much, it can “add up over time, especially while fuel prices are high.”

Are there any risks or drawbacks to using credit cards to cover gas?

Perhaps the biggest caveat is that gas rewards cards tend to be best for those who can afford to pay off their credit card balance in full each and every month. Given steep credit card APRs, “any rewards you might earn by paying with plastic would likely be overshadowed by the interest you’d rack up in just a single billing cycle,” said NerdWallet. Some cards may also charge annual fees, which can also eat into the rewards you earn.

Additionally, it is worth noting that cards may put a cap on the rewards you can enjoy in a certain period. “Depending on how much your regular gas bill is, these caps could make a difference in how much you can earn,” said Yahoo Finance.

How can you find the best gas credit card?

To get the most out of a gas rewards credit card, you need to know what to look for. There are two main types: specific “co-branded gas cards — those affiliated with a particular company such as Exxon or Shell,” and “general rewards credit cards,” said NerdWallet. The former “tend to offer incentives on fuel bought at those specific stations,” whereas general rewards cards allow you to earn rewards “on gas purchases made anywhere, not just with one specific brand,” and often at a higher rate. (There are, however, exceptions here, such as “cards affiliated with wholesalers like Costco and Sam’s Club, whose gas prices tend to be lower than average,” said NerdWallet.)

That said, when choosing a card, it is also important to note any associated costs. That could be a membership fee, as with the aforementioned wholesalers’ cards, or an annual fee.

For a general rewards credit card, you should also take a look at the card more holistically in terms of your financial habits. If you can “find a card that helps you save on gas along with your other regular budget items, you can save even more over time,” said Yahoo Finance.

The price of crude oil could rise to $150 a barrel under a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

Jorge Montepeque, managing director of oil traders Onyx Capital Group, said prices “should be $140, $150” if the naval blockade goes ahead, said The Telegraph.

The US blockade was due to begin at 3pm today UK time. Writing on social media, Donald Trump said that the US was going to start “BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz” and will “interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran”.

How will it work?

Under Trump’s plan, instead of having navy ships escort commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, US forces will board and potentially seize any vessels that pay Iran’s toll, a move that would effectively close the strait off entirely.

The US Central Command said that its forces would not impede the freedom of vessels travelling to and from non-Iranian ports. It also pledged that it would release additional information to commercial mariners.

The president warned that “any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL”, but “at some point” an agreement on free passage would be reached. He said that other countries would be involved in blockading the strait, but did not specify which. Keir Starmer said the UK would not join the blockade.

What will the effect be?

The consequences for the global economy could be serious. There’s “little clarity” about how the US navy will take control of the strait without “reigniting” the conflict with Iran and “causing another shockwave” in the money markets, said Michael Evans in The Times.

The blockade “might risk worsening a war-driven global energy crisis”, said The Washington Post. Although Iran would “potentially suffer the most economically”, it may also “come as a blow to the rest of the world”, particularly nations in Asia, which “rely heavily” on oil and gas from the Gulf.

So the president is “once again playing loose with the fortunes of financial markets and the global economy as he struggles to find a way out of the war”, said Australia’s ABC News.

As for Trump, the plan “reflects his hope” that he can repeat the “model of his intervention” in Venezuela, said the Financial Times. There, the US “seized” the then president Nicolás Maduro in a military operation after a naval blockade of the Latin American nation.

“You saw what we did with Venezuela,” Trump told Fox News. “It’ll be something very similar to that, but at a higher level.”

What did experts say?

Initially, Trump’s plan will only affect the small number of vessels that are still navigating the waterway, shipping expert Lars Jensen told the BBC. If the US does blockade the strait, it will “halt a very tiny trickle” of vessels and “in the greater scheme of things, it doesn’t really change anything”.

But three legal experts in the US said the blockade could violate maritime law. One of them suggested the blockade, which will be enforced militarily, would violate the current ceasefire agreement.

The blockade is a good “counterpoint” to Iran’s closure of the strait, Dennis Ross, the former senior US diplomat and Middle East negotiator, said on X. It puts “greater pressure on Iran” and “great pressure on China to pressure Iran”.

But Vali Nasr, a former US official and a professor at Johns Hopkins University, told the Financial Times that the plan will be “fine by the Iranians” because it “prolongs the chokehold on the global economy”.

Tehran might respond by shutting down the Bab el-Mandeb, a chokepoint off the coast of Yemen, said Nasr, and “then the US will have to deal with that”.

Airlines are feeling the strain of swelling oil prices resulting from the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. To deal with higher operating costs, many companies are making changes that shift the burden to consumers, including higher baggage fees, more fuel surcharges and canceled routes.

How are higher gas costs affecting airlines?

Airlines and their customers across the U.S. are being impacted but especially those based in four major hubs: Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York City. In these locations, the average price for a gallon of jet fuel is currently $4.25, according to the aviation trade association Airlines for America. On Feb. 27, the day before the war in Iran started, the average price was only $2.50. Airlines are also “facing an increase in the amount of fuel their aircraft use because of extra miles required to avoid flying over the conflict zone,” said The Guardian.

Fuel is already an expensive cost for aviators and is “generally airlines’ largest expense after labor,” said Quartz. Airlines are feeling the pressure as a result. If prices were to stay at their current level, it would mean an “extra $11 billion in annual expense just for jet fuel,” said United CEO Scott Kirby in a memo to employees. For “perspective, in United’s best year ever, we made less than $5 billion.”

How are airlines adapting?

Many are adding “extra fees and surcharges onto already rising ticket prices” to “recoup costs as the war in Iran causes fuel costs to surge,” said The New York Times. Luggage is one common area where airlines are bumping up the price. Delta and Southwest announced they would “start charging $10 more to check a bag on U.S. domestic flights,” days after United and JetBlue said the same.

The company with the most notable baggage changes may be American. The airline said it would “raise the fee by $10 each for the first and the second checked bag for travelers booking domestic and short-haul international flights,” said The Detroit News. The company also “increased the cost of a third checked bag by $50 to $200” for fliers and additionally announced an upcoming $5 increase on checked bags for passengers flying economy.

Some airlines are also including pricing for the fuel itself. Canada’s second-largest airline, WestJet, announced it would “add fuel surcharges of up to 60 Canadian dollars, or about $43, to some flights,” said the Times. Air Canada unveiled surcharges of 50 Canadian dollars to certain warm-weather destinations. For passengers, the decisions from airlines resulted in “rising fares and fees, fewer flight options and difficult decisions about whether a trip is worth the cost,” said The Associated Press.

Airlines are also cutting the number of places they go. Several Asian airlines have stated they would “cut flights to mitigate fuel shortages and mounting costs,” said Business Insider. Ryanair, Europe’s largest carrier, is also “considering reducing routes,” while Lufthansa could ground up to 40 planes. Air New Zealand will “cut about 5% of its flights, or about 1,100, at the start of May,” and in the U.S., United and Delta are both cutting routes.

As the world creeps toward peak travel season, industry leaders are taking notice of the fuel shortages. ACI Europe, an association representing airports in the European Union, notes these shortages could “hit within three weeks, disrupting summer travel and ‘significantly’ harming the European economy,” said CNBC. For people who still want to fly, experts say “flexibility and careful planning can help offset these costs,” said the AP, and “fare-tracking sites can alert travelers to price changes.”

In 2022, Shan Hanes, the chief executive of the Heartland Tri-State Bank in Kansas, met a friendly investment adviser from Australia on WhatsApp. The adviser persuaded Hanes to invest a few thousand dollars in an online cryptocurrency-trading platform, which generated impressive returns. Hanes ended up investing all his own money, $60,000 from his daughter's college fund, $40,000 from his local church and $47 million from the bank he ran.

The “adviser” was, it transpired, not in Australia but most likely in Asia; the “trading platform” was fake; and Hanes had become the highest-profile US victim of a practice known in Chinese as sha zhu pan, a “pig-butchering scam”. Some money was recovered, but investors lost $9 million, the bank collapsed, and Hanes was sentenced to 24 years in prison.

How do the scams work?

“Long cons” have been around for ever, but these – in which the scammers invest a lot of time in building a relationship with the victim, a process they liken to fattening a pig for slaughter – have distinctive features.

Scammers actively seek out victims on social media: pig-butchering originated on regional Chinese dating sites around 10 years ago, but it has since spread to platforms such as Telegram, WhatsApp and LinkedIn. They create trusting relationships with their victims, sometimes of a romantic nature; one former scammer told The Economist she’d been trained to target people who were “rich but not good-looking”.

They rely heavily on crypto, which is easy to launder and difficult to recover. These and other online scams are increasingly run out of Chinese-linked “scam hubs” or “fraud factories” in Southeast Asia.

How did such operations develop?

Gambling – illegal on mainland China – is one of the main revenue streams for domestic and foreign-based Chinese mafias. Casinos and online gambling hubs for Chinese-speakers, based in Cambodia and Myanmar, were one of their main enterprises until 2019, when Cambodia tightened its regulations; Covid lockdowns then emptied the casinos. The criminal syndicates refitted their properties as centres where teams of workers – often trafficked and coerced – run online scams at scale.

Chinese citizens were their original targets, followed by Chinese communities around the world. But they soon expanded to other nationalities, which also meant expanding their trafficking activities. In the four years from January 2020, at least $75 billion was taken in crypto scams; estimates suggest the industry generates over $500 billion a year, comparable to the global drugs trade.

Why do they traffic people?

Many of the gangs’ voluntary workers went home during Covid; not enough locals had the necessary language and computer skills, and recruiting people into cybercrime isn't always easy. The scammers’ solution was to lure people – typically young graduates from developing countries – to cities such as Bangkok with fake offers of legitimate employment, then drive them to compounds in Myanmar, Cambodia or Laos, and put them to work under threats of torture, organ harvesting and sexual slavery.

A UN report this February found that there is a workforce of at least 300,000 people from 66 countries, about 75% of them in the Mekong River region of Southeast Asia. Many live in vast compounds, like self-contained towns – some over 500 acres in size, heavily fortified, with armed guards. It's unlikely that all the workers are coerced, but many of them certainly are; some families have had to pay ransoms in cryptocurrency to get them out.

What are the nations doing about it?

Weak local governance, along with easy access to China, is the reason the gangs set up shop in the Mekong region in the first place. Myanmar's military junta doesn’t control the whole territory; much of it is controlled by insurgent groups and warlords; while Cambodian politics has been dominated by one family since the 1980s. Transparency International ranks both governments among the most corrupt in the world. Analysts calculate that Cambodia’s scam hubs generate earnings worth about 60% of the nation's GDP. According to the US Treasury Department, the Huione Group, a financial conglomerate with ties to Cambodia’s ruling Hun family, has provided the gangs with financial and practical services. Like Latin American “narco-states” before them, these countries are well on the way to becoming “scam states”.

Is there international pressure to close them down?

Influenced partly by stories like the kidnapping of the actor Wang Xing, and even a popular film about scam hubs, “No More Bets”, China has launched an aggressive crackdown. There have been heavily publicised rescues of coerced workers in the Mekong countries; under Chinese pressure, local law enforcement has dismantled notorious scam hubs like the KK Park complex in Myawaddy, Myanmar, thought to have been run by Macau-based triads. Thai forces shelled several other hubs during a border conflict with Cambodia last year. China has arrested hundreds of thousands of people over scams, and in January it executed 11 members of the “Ming family” crime group, who had been extradited from Myanmar.

Is the situation improving?

Experts worry that police raids on compounds in Cambodia and Myanmar are largely for show: the bosses are often tipped off in advance. In any case, they have globalised their operations, popping up as far afield as Peru and the Philippines. Police even closed down an operation targeting Chinese citizens on the Isle of Man in 2024. But developments in AI may mean that the scammers are getting less reliant on human trafficking for language skills. One report on AI-assisted scams found that they rose by 450% in 2024-25 compared with 2023-24. The scammers now often use “deepfakes” of increasingly good quality to groom their victims.

The countdown to the closure of the SAVE plan has at last begun. The student loan repayment plan, which aimed to offer lower monthly payments and a faster path toward forgiveness for borrowers, almost immediately faced pushback when introduced by the Biden administration in 2023, with several Republican-led states suing. For a while, this ongoing legal battle left borrowers in limbo. But with the recent arrival of a decisive, plan-ending judgment, followed by a deadline set by the Trump administration for those who are enrolled to exit, borrowers are now in a position where they must take action.

What is happening to the SAVE plan?

After a roughly two-year legal battle, a decisive judgment has arrived for the federal SAVE, or Saving on a Valuable Education, plan. As of March, the “Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals put an end to a legal challenge of the SAVE student loan repayment plan and instructed a district court to approve a proposed settlement between the Trump administration and the state of Missouri that would end the program,” said Yahoo Finance. In short, the program is “permanently eliminated.”

Following this, the Department of Education sent out a notice informing borrowers “they would need to switch to a different federal repayment plan by the end of September,” said NerdWallet. As of that announcement, “over 7 million borrowers” were still enrolled in the plan, which “offered lower monthly payments than other income-driven repayment plans,” as well as the opportunity for faster loan forgiveness.

What will happen to borrowers enrolled in SAVE?

Up until this point, while litigation has been ongoing, borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan have been in “an administrative forbearance without payments due since the plan was challenged in court in the summer of 2024,” said CNBC, though interest began accruing in August 2025. But as of July 1, these remaining enrollees can expect to receive an email from their servicer instructing them to leave the SAVE plan and offering instructions for how to enroll in another repayment option. They will have 90 days to do so, or until the end of September.

Those who do not switch over will be automatically enrolled in the 10-year standard plan, “which would result in considerably higher payments in many cases,” said U.S. News & World Report.

What alternative repayment plan options do borrowers have?

With SAVE now officially off the table, borrowers have the option of existing income-based repayment plans, which can offer more affordable payments than the standard 10-year repayment plan. Another option is to wait to enroll in RAP, or the Repayment Assistance Plan, a new repayment plan established under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. This plan moderates payments based on income, though a minimum payment is required, and offers forgiveness after a longer period of 30 years.

Regardless of the option borrowers choose, “it’s likely that any new plan will mean higher payments,” said U.S. News & World Report. The SAVE plan “was the most affordable option for most people.”

President Donald Trump loves raging against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, regularly chiding the military partnership for alleged financial delinquencies while at the same time boosting the interests of NATO’s primary antagonist, Russia. Now, as the U.S.’s war on Iran continues, NATO’s ostensible neutrality in that conflict has prompted him to renew his threat of leaving the organization altogether. Trump often tries to dictate reality by presidential fiat, but the legal process for leaving NATO is largely out of his hands and in Congress.’ The result is a Trump who’s more constrained on paper but not without a toolbox of other, less absolute options.

Why can’t Trump just leave NATO?

Trump has often threatened to leave the military alliance, but he has his own Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to thank for the legal inability to do so. In 2023, Congress enacted what “appears to be the first statute prohibiting the president from unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty (specifically, the North Atlantic Treaty),” said the government’s Congressional Research Service in a February 2026 report. This “might be understood as a rejection” of the position that presidents possess “exclusive power over treaty withdrawal.”

The bill ensures presidents cannot exit NATO “without rigorous debate and consideration by the U.S. Congress with the input of the American people,” said co-sponsor Rubio in a statement on Senator Tim Kaine’s site; Kaine (D-Va.) was the amendment’s other sponsor. Before this, any member nation could exit the treaty one year after notifying the U.S., which would then “inform the governments of the other parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation,” said the NATO charter.

Per the bill, a bipartisan effort for which Rubio partnered with Kaine and others from across the aisle, a president may only exit NATO “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the senators present concur or pursuant to an Act of Congress.” This is a virtual impossibility, given the Democrats’ current holdings in the upper chamber.

The 2023 effort was “spurred by worries that Trump, if he returned to power, might try to quit the alliance,” said The Washington Post. Fast forward three years, and Trump “insists he would be able to do it anyway,” said Deutsche Welle.

What can he do then?

While it’s possible a constitutional challenge to Rubio’s 2023 bill would “likely favor the power of a president,” there are still “plenty of ways” Trump could “kneecap” the treaty “without leaving” or complying with the congressional restrictions, said DW. Even without an “official exit,” Trump’s “increasingly hostile stance toward the alliance may leave it weakened,” said CBS News.

If other member nations “can’t trust” that the U.S. will honor the treaty’s Article 5 mutual defense pact, then the alliance is “already broken in the way that matters most,” said political scientist Ian Bremmer on X. As soon as the group’s mutual defense pact is “questioned,” NATO “loses its potency” as a Russian deterrent, said Politico. Trump has, in that respect, “turned doubting NATO into official policy.”

The president is also “considering a plan to punish” some NATO member nations he deemed “unhelpful” during the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, said The Wall Street Journal. This would involve relocating some of the 84,000 American troops stationed in Europe and deploying them to “countries that were more supportive,” including Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

Trump could also withdraw American military assets entirely and shut off funding for NATO operations. Or if he wants to be “very dramatic,” he might even “decide not to staff the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe,” a post traditionally reserved for American officers, said DW.

The president could “just downgrade our participation,” said Jim Townsend, a former Pentagon official who oversaw Europe and NATO policy, to Politico. He could skip summits, and the secretary of defense “won’t go to defense ministerials.”

With the “language” of its 2023 bill, Congress has “prevented” a “total” and “formal withdrawal from NATO,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to Politico. But the U.S. could “still be in NATO” with a president grasping “many different levers” so that the country’s impact would nevertheless be “diminished significantly.”

The countdown has begun to the introduction of new rules on how pensions are treated after someone dies.

In the “biggest shake-up of inheritance rules in a generation”, said The Telegraph, the value of a pension will, from April 2027, form part of someone’s estate after they die.

This could mean an inheritance tax bill for one in five households, said The Times, so “the countdown is on to protect their family wealth”.

What is the pensions death tax?

Putting money into a pension has traditionally been “one of the most tax-efficient ways to pass wealth on to loved ones”, said Rest Less. But any unused money in the pot from next year will fall into the scope of inheritance tax, “potentially reducing the amount families receive when someone dies”.

The proposals were announced in the October 2024 Budget by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. They aim to address concerns, said Dentons, that pensions were “increasingly being used as vehicles for inheritance planning, rather than for their primary purpose of providing retirement income”.

Who will be affected?

Inheritance tax is paid on the value of an estate above £325,000. Additionally, there is a £175,000 allowance for your main residence.

The tax “isn’t going to be an issue for most people”, said Royal London, but you may be affected if you own your own home and the value of your pension is added due to the potential total amounts.

The changes will still affect “most individuals” who have unused pension benefits when they die, said Tax Adviser. This means pensions can no longer be relied on as an “efficient means of passing” on wealth such as to your children. This could apply to millions who were previously free of it.

Inheritance tax receipts have already been rising due to “years of property price growth, asset inflation and frozen tax thresholds”, said The Times, so including pensions “will accelerate the trend”.

Beyond the potential charge, “of greatest concern”, said Wedlake Bell, is that payment of inheritance tax on pension assets will remain six months from the end of the month when the deceased died and interest on unpaid inheritance tax is currently running at 7.75%. The government has rejected calls to give bereaved families more time to pay.

Many families could face paying interest, said MoneyWeek, “due to administrative jams” involved in finding pension information and getting the right valuations.

How to prepare for the changes

If you are retired “it might make sense” to prioritise taking money from your pension before other assets, said Grovely Financial, especially if your goal is “inheritance tax mitigation”.

Another option, said MoneyWeek, is to “give away money while you are alive” so you can watch your loved ones enjoy it.

Up to £3,000 per tax year can be given as a financial gift, and tax-free gifts can be made to your children worth up to £5,000 for a wedding or civil partnership or £2,500 for a grandchild or great-grandchild.

Any money given outside of the gifting allowances is tax-free as long as you live for seven years after transfer. Gifting allowances can be used to pass cash on to loved ones, or alternatively, for extra net income.

Alternatively, there are life insurance policies that pay out to cover the cost of inheritance tax. They work in a similar way to other life insurance products: you pay premiums while you are alive “and there will be a payout when you die”, said The Independent.

A British computer scientist who pioneered a forerunner of cryptocurrencies has denied reports that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin.

An investigation by The New York Times used biographical details and writing style comparisons to make the case that Adam Back was the cryptocurrency’s enigmatic founder.

Who is Adam Back?

Back, a 55-year-old computer scientist from London, “has long been seen as a potential candidate to be Nakamoto”, said The Times. “A pioneer of early digital asset research in the 1990s”, he “has a long-standing background in cryptography, the techniques used to secure and verify digital information”. This includes developing Hashcash, “a proof-of-work system that later influenced Bitcoin” and was referenced by Nakamoto in his Bitcoin “white paper”.

Back dismissed The New York Times’ use of writing analyses to link him to the elusive Nakamoto as “a combination of coincidence and similar phrases from people with similar experience and interests”. In reference to the claim that he disappeared from Bitcoin message boards when “Satoshi” was at his busiest, Back insisted that he “did a lot of yakking” on the forums at the time. “I’m not Satoshi,” he said.

Why is Nakamoto’s identity a secret?

Since Bitcoin launched in 2008, Nakamoto has chosen to stay anonymous. All their communication was written under their pseudonym and no verifiable personal details have ever been released or revealed. Since 2011, they have given no public statements at all, their seeming disappearance giving them a “cult-like status among crypto enthusiasts”, said The Times.

This anonymity was very on-brand for Bitcoin. The cryptocurrency was designed to have no central authority; if the identity of a real person were known they could become a leader or figurehead, which might contradict the founding principle of decentralisation. There is a security element, too: Nakamoto is thought to own $78 billion worth of bitcoin, so remaining anonymous lessens the risk of extortion or kidnapping.

It’s also possible that the mysterious founder is not one person, but rather a team of developers or cryptographers. Either way, the years of speculation have added to Bitcoin’s profile and acted as a useful indirect marketing tool.

Has anyone else been suggested?

In 2014, Newsweek identified a Japanese-American systems engineer called Dorian Satoshi Nakamoto as the creator of Bitcoin. He disputed this, and the claim has “largely been debunked”, said the BBC.

The following year, Wired suggested Nakamoto could be a pseudonym for Australian computer scientist Craig Wright. Unlike Back and Dorian Nakamoto, Wright went public to assert he was indeed Nakamoto, until a UK High Court judge ruled he was not the Bitcoin founder and barred him from continuing to claim he was.

In 2024, an HBO documentary claimed that Canadian crypto expert Peter Todd was the real Nakamoto, a suggestion he described as “ludicrous”.

Whether you are considering a move to a new apartment or reevaluating how to allocate your budget, you may be wondering how much is reasonable to shell out each month for rent. Of course, the cost of housing is a non-negotiable — after all, you need a place to live — but it is also typically among the biggest regular expenditures a person has. It is also an expense you must commit to, at least for a certain period of time, when you sign a lease.

Before you sign on the dotted line and agree to pay a portion of your income every month, it is important to have an understanding of the guidelines for rent spending, as well as what factors influence the amount that is actually right for you and your budget.

What percentage of your income should ideally go to rent?

These two common rules of thumb can give you a rough idea of what is reasonable to spend on rent each month, at least according to financial experts:

The 30% rule: This rule “says that you should limit what you spend on rent to 30% or less of your gross monthly income,” with the cost of rent also including “other housing costs, such as renters insurance, utilities, parking and more,” said Rocket Mortgage.

The 50/30/20 rule: This is a “more comprehensive rule that takes all of your expenses into account, as well as savings goals,” said Rocket Mortgage. Here, the benchmark is to spend a maximum of 50% of your income on essentials and financial obligations, like rent, and then 30% on wants, meaning discretionary spending. The remaining 20% goes into savings.

What factors affect the cost of renting?

The above rules can be a helpful starting point, but they do not necessarily account for the myriad factors that can quickly throw a wrench in those calculations.

Location, as you might expect, is a big one. For instance, the 30% rule can be “hard to follow in a place like New York City or San Francisco, where median rents are well over $3,500 for a one-bedroom apartment,” said NerdWallet, citing 2025 Zillow rental market summaries. Where you live also shapes housing inventory, and the “law of supply and demand means landlords can charge more in areas where there’s a shortage of rental properties,” said Experian.

It is also important to look at the one-time and recurring costs as they relate to the place you rent. Some landlords include utility costs in the price of rent, in which case it may make sense for you to pay a bit more. Or, an apartment building could “have an on-site gym or a washer and dryer in-unit, which might make your rent payments higher,” but you will “save money on membership fees and laundromats,” said NerdWallet. Another consideration is commuting costs: While you may save by living further from the city center, how much will you then have to shell out to get to work every day?

How can you determine how much rent you can afford?

Rather than focusing on this one number, it is important to zoom out and consider your broader financial situation. The “biggest factors are your income and fixed monthly bills, such as utilities, loan payments, health insurance and other costs you must cover,” said Rocket Mortgage. This will shape how much you actually have leftover in your budget to cover the cost of rent.

If you find that the resulting calculations are out of line with the above rules of thumb, consider whether you can cut back in other areas or if you are open to exploring ways to pay less in rent, such as getting a roommate.