People looking to grill hamburgers this summer may not get a respite from rising beef prices anytime soon, as an ongoing cattle shortage across the United States could compound high costs at the grocery store. Farmers are now worried the beef industry could be on the fritz for a while.

How is the cattle shortage affecting the beef market?

At the beginning of 2026, American cattle producers had 86.2 million heads of cattle nationwide according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), marking the lowest number to start the year since 1951. The number of cattle that had calved (given birth to a baby) was also down 100,000 from the prior year. Several economic and geopolitical factors have “been pushing livestock numbers down, including rising costs, international competition and increased consolidation in the cattle industry,” said NPR.

“Years of severe drought in the western United States” have also “strained feed supplies and forced many ranchers to reduce their herds,” said WTHR-TV Indianapolis. With less grain comes less grass for cattle to feed on, so “farmers have cut herd sizes — a decision that can shrink the nation’s beef supply for years.” The reduced supply is becoming unsustainable for ranchers.

As cattle become more scarce, their price goes up, and these higher prices have led many ranchers to “sell their livestock and have dissuaded them from buying new animals to rebuild their herds,” said NPR. Cattle farmers say they are being forced to gamble with the industry. “We could put another 100 head out on grass, with what our grass will hopefully be this spring, but then you’re also wondering too, ‘Is that too much of a risk?’” Amanda Hall, a cattle farmer in Lexington, Kentucky, told NPR.

What does the future hold?

Even as ranchers are looking for solutions to high prices, there is “no quick fix for tight supplies, as the sticker shock in the grocery aisles didn’t happen overnight,” said Bloomberg. But Americans don’t want beef any less just because it’s more expensive, and demand has “allowed big retailers to stay on the winning side of these sales, while meatpackers lose out, as larger accounts have leverage to negotiate their pricing,” David Anderson, an agricultural economics professor at Texas A&M University, told Bloomberg.

President Donald Trump’s effort to “lower beef prices has divided top administration officials and some of his closest allies,” said Politico, potentially throwing another wrench into the problem. Trump faces a dilemma in “trying to balance consumers’ concerns about rising grocery prices with those of his supporters in the cattle industry.” The administration’s decision to import large quantities of Argentinian beef has also rubbed many ranchers the wrong way.

The government still remains optimistic that the livestock lull is temporary. While short-term lows remain, cattle inventories “are expected to rise to 91.6 million head in 2034,” said the USDA. Prices in 2026 could reach record highs “before falling back through 2031 and then starting a new climb through 2034.” Other parts of the farm are also expected to grow, as “broiler chicken production is projected to reach successive annual record highs over the next 10 years.”

With Russian and Ukrainian forces seemingly locked in stalemate on the ground, the war has increasingly become an aerial one with both sides turning to drones and “smart” missiles to try to gain an advantage.

What does that look like?

Over the past four years Ukraine has pioneered the use of both offensive and defensive drones. They have changed the face of war and helped narrow the advantage enjoyed by Russia when it comes to weapons and personnel.

These unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, “hit Russian targets every day” and have played “a huge role in Ukraine’s recent improvement in fortunes, together with other innovations in the country’s drone war”, said the Financial Times.

At the same time, Ukraine has built an “increasingly sophisticated, layered air defence system”, said the BBC’s defence correspondent Jonathan Beale. Kyiv is now able to successfully intercept the vast majority of Russian long-range drones and missiles before they can hit their targets. “Embracing innovation and technology is giving Ukraine an advantage”, with “software that tracks every glide bomb, missile and drone launched by Russia” being “at the heart” of its air defences.

While the “intensity” of air attacks “continues to increase”, Russian military expert Nikolai Mitrokhine told Le Monde, both sides are using different tactics. Russia carries out occasional but massive strikes to overwhelm Ukrainian air defences. It “sometimes fires nearly 1,000 drones a day – as was the case on 24 March – while Ukraine launches almost nightly attacks, between 250 and 400 drones”.

What weapons do they have?

Ukraine has been producing long- and medium-range FP-1 and FP-2 drones – known as “Drakosha” or “little dragons” – at scale and at speed at a cost of about €50,000 each. It has been “pouring resources” into “middle strikes” that target Russian air defences and military logistics as far as 180km (112 miles) behind the front line, said Reuters. These strikes cannot “turn the tide against Russia” alone, but are “having an additional impact by facilitating longer-range drone strikes that are damaging Russian oil infrastructure”.

And while Ukraine still relies on expensive US-made Patriot missiles to take down Russian ballistic missiles, cheap interceptor drones, such as the P1-SUN, are proving most effective in defending Ukraine’s cities from aerial attack. They are 3D-printed and cost just $1,000 (£750); more than 1,000 are produced every day by Ukraine.

They can, however, do little to stop Russian glide bombs. These are Soviet-era munitions fitted with cheap guidance kits that turn so-called “dumb” bombs into precision weapons. They can be launched from well inside Russian airspace and there is no reliable way to stop them. “For three years, they have been one of the most destructive weapons” used by Kremlin forces to level entire city blocks from Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia to Kherson, said The Telegraph.

Ukraine hit back last week, unveiling its first domestically produced glide bomb, named the Vyrivniuvach, or “Equaliser”.

How might this change the war?

The Equaliser is “one of the most significant additions to Ukraine’s home-grown arsenal since the war began”. It “could potentially accelerate the pace at which Russian forces are pushed back”, said Keir Giles, from the Chatham House think tank.

More generally, Ukraine’s long-range capabilities are “significantly changing the situation and, more broadly, the world’s perception of Russia’s war,” President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said last month.

“Fast-improving” Ukrainian drone capabilities are “hurting the invaders’ logistics behind the battlefield, and pounding oil infrastructure and military targets deeper inside Russia,” said The Wall Street Journal. “Having gained a tactical and technological edge” in the air, this summer will test whether Ukraine “can turn that slender advantage into a strategic turning point”.

For many retirees, Social Security is an essential source of income. But unfortunately, it is also one that may soon become less reliable as available funds dry up.

Per a recent projection by the Congressional Budget Office, “Social Security’s main retirement trust fund — formally known as the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund — will run out of reserves in 2032,” said Money Talks News. That would translate to “cuts starting at around 7% in 2032 and deepening to an average of about 28% per year from 2033 through 2036,” said the outlet, citing an analysis by Newsweek.

Cuts of that size would translate to a sizable difference in retirement income for many. Planning ahead by following these tips can help ensure they do not derail your retirement entirely.

1. Look for ways to cut expenses

Reviewing your spending is not the most fun exercise, but it can often reveal some opportunities to make a reduced retirement income stretch a little further. There are smaller tweaks you can make, like traveling less or canceling unused subscriptions, or you may consider more drastic moves, depending on the income gap you are facing.

For instance, “downsizing a home, eliminating a household vehicle or moving to an area with a lower cost of living can significantly reduce expenses for those willing to make larger lifestyle changes,” said U.S. News & World Report.

2. Delay claiming benefits

“Nervous retirees are already rushing to claim Social Security benefits early, convinced they should grab what they can before the system changes,” said Money Talks News. But in reality, “there’s no advantage to claiming early if cuts hit across the board,” and doing so just means the “system-wide cut applies on top of that smaller base.”

By waiting to claim Social Security, you can maximize the base amount you earn in benefits. For each year until age 70 that you wait to claim, your benefit will increase by 8%, which can go a long way toward making up for the projected shortfall.

3. Build other sources of income

This does not necessarily mean going back to work, though that is an option, whether in the form of a part-time job, gig work or consulting in your former field. Other options to close the upcoming income gap include buying a deferred income annuity “equal to the reduction,” which effectively “converts your savings into a guaranteed income stream beginning on a future date and continuing for the rest of your life,” said Kiplinger. Alternatively, you could “create a diversified bucket of mutual funds that is separate from your other investments” and intended specifically “to make up for that anticipated Social Security cut.”

Hampshire’s police and crime commissioner has called for a review of religious exemptions on the carrying of knives in public after the fatal stabbing of Henry Nowak last December.

Vickrum Digwa was jailed for life on Monday for stabbing the 18-year-old Nowak five times with what the judge called a “large Sikh dagger”. The prosecution told the jury that while Digwa was entitled to wear a small kirpan, a ceremonial sword or dagger worn by initiated Sikhs, under his clothing around his neck, he also chose to carry the much larger knife that was used to stab Nowak.

The law makes it illegal to carry most knives in public without a “good reason”, said the UK government. It is “illegal to use any knife or weapon in a threatening way”.

Are kirpans exempt from UK knife laws?

A template letter from The Council of Sikhs in Law that provides information for employers says the kirpan is “a ceremonial blade, carried by initiated Sikhs as one of the five articles of faith”. Worn by Amritdhari, or baptised Sikhs, it holds “a deep religious and symbolic significance for Sikhs, representing the duty to protect the oppressed and uphold justice”.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 sets out “an exception in terms of carrying bladed articles in public places for particular religious and ceremonial reasons”, said Cabinet Office minister Nick Thomas-Symonds in response to Nowak’s death. The government has “been tightening up the law” in terms of buying knives online and by banning “things like terrible zombie knives”. But “the judge actually said that the minute that this perpetrator removed the blade from the sheath, you can forget any sense of there being some sort of exception to the law”.

What other uses are permitted?

As well as citing “religious reasons”, the law allows exemptions “as part of any national costume”, such as a sgian dubh, a small ornamental knife worn with Highland dress.

Matt Easton, an antique dealer and sword expert who consults with police and lawyers to navigate the law, said that under the so-called “samurai sword ban” only curved swords with blades over 50cm from hilt to point (measured in a straight line) are prohibited. Blunt blades or curved swords for the purposes of historical re-enactment or filmmaking or for sports such as fencing or martial arts are allowed (usually with proof of participation such as insurance document or club membership card). Curved swords “traditionally made by hand and/or with a hand operated machine” are also exempt as are antiques over 100 years old and most “vintage” swords made before 1954.

When else can you carry knives?

The law also states it is a defence for a person charged with carrying an illegal knife to prove that they had “good reason or lawful authority” for having the article with them in a public place. This can include travelling directly to and from a legitimate bushcraft course or woodland activity where a fixed blade is required, or for “use at work” covering farmers, conservation workers and other professions where a knife is an essential tool.

A 2019 court judgment, Garry v. Crown Prosecution Service, established that the offence of carrying an offensive weapon in a public place “imposes a strict liability burden on defendants to prove they have a reasonable excuse for carrying the weapon”, said the Magistrates’ Association. The court was also asked to consider whether any alternative non-offensive tools could be used to carry out the same work function and “whether there is a temporal connection between the time the defendant was found in possession of the weapon and their attendance at work”.

If you have ever taken out a mortgage, you’ll know there are a lot of requirements to meet. You may need to put down a certain amount and have a debt-to-income ratio below a certain threshold. You may also run into limits on how much you can borrow or what sources of income the lender will count.

These rules do not apply to all mortgages — just to conforming mortgages, which is what the majority of borrowers take out. However, mortgage lenders are increasingly offering what are known as nonconforming loans, or mortgages that do not “comply with every one of the strict standards put in place after the housing crisis,” said The Wall Street Journal. While “still a small portion,” the “share of mortgages using alternative lending practices” has “doubled in size over the past three years.”

What are nonconforming loans?

A nonconforming mortgage is a “type of home loan that doesn’t meet some or all of the guidelines that make them eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” said Bankrate. These are the government-sponsored entities that “support much of the secondary mortgage market in the U.S.,” meaning they often purchase resold mortgages.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have “federal rules that limit the purchase of loans deemed relatively risk-free,” said Investopedia. Loans that meet these guidelines are conforming loans; loans that do not are nonconforming. To be a conforming loan, a mortgage must fall under a certain loan amount, and the borrower must meet specific criteria when it comes to their credit score, debt-to-income ratio and loan-to-value ratio.

Effectively, any home loan that does not align with these stipulations is considered nonconforming. Examples include jumbo loans, government-backed loans, bridge loans and interest-only loans.

Why do people get them?

There are a wide range of reasons people may opt for a nonconforming mortgage. For one, “you may have no choice but to choose a nonconforming jumbo loan if you want to buy an expensive property,” said Rocket Mortgage. These loans can also provide more flexibility when it comes to the type of property you purchase, your credit score and your down payment amount.

Nonconforming loans additionally “offer an opportunity for home buyers who might not otherwise qualify for traditional loans because they are self-employed or hold their wealth in assets such as real estate,” said the Journal.

What are the drawbacks?

For starters, there are fewer lenders offering them “since they pose a higher risk to the bank or mortgage lender,” said Yahoo Finance. That said, availability can vary depending on the specific type, as “some nonconforming loans (like FHA mortgages) are common, while others (like USDA loans) can be harder to find.”

Nonconforming loans also “generally carry a higher interest rate for the borrower,” said the Journal, given the increased risk to the lender. Still, this can vary by loan type. For instance, “FHA, VA and USDA loans usually have lower interest rates,” while “less common nonconforming loans, such as bridge loans, often have higher interest rates,” said Yahoo Finance. There is also the possibility that a nonconforming loan “could have an unusual repayment schedule or other features that make it harder to repay,” said Bankrate.

Colombian mercenary troops trained on United Arab Emirates (UAE) bases participated in atrocities committed by the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group during the ongoing Sudanese civil war, according to reports from the nonprofits Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Conflict Insights Group last month. Global Security Services Group, an “Abu Dhabi-based security company,” hired “hundreds of Colombian private military contractors” who allegedly aided the RSF’s assault on the North Darfur capital of El Fasher, where rebels “took over the city and committed widespread killings and rape,” said Human Rights Watch. The UAE has denied the reports, as rights groups call for further investigations and action.

What links the UAE with Colombian mercenaries?

HRW’s report is the latest evidence that the United Arab Emirates is “financially and militarily aiding the Rapid Support Forces” that have been “widely accused of committing atrocities amounting to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide,” said The Associated Press. The report alleges “hundreds” of Colombian mercenaries were “trained by Emirati nationals at a military base” more than a hundred miles outside the capital of Abu Dhabi. They were then given further training “at another facility in Abu Dhabi, before being deployed to Sudan to fight alongside the RSF.”

The UAE has “long denied supporting the RSF,” said the BBC. The Conflict Insights Group’s report is the “first research where we can prove UAE involvement with certainty,” said the group’s Director Justin Lynch to the outlet. The investigation, which used “data obtained from tracking the mobile phones of the Colombian fighters,” makes public “what governments have long known. There is a direct link between Abu Dhabi and the RSF.”

The deployment of Colombian mercenaries is part of a “broader pattern” for Abu Dhabi, said Human Rights Watch researcher Joey Shea in an interview with Democracy Now!. The UAE has been “intervening in neighboring conflicts for over a decade” to “project its political and economic influence abroad.”

What is the broader context?

The beleaguered Sudanese government is “protecting Africa from external plots” by “confronting foreign interference” in the ongoing civil war, said Foreign Minister Mohieldin Salem to Al Jazeera in February. Sudan’s conflict “involves a large number of mercenaries and significant external intervention through funding and advanced weaponry.”

Last year, journalists investigated a captured convoy of weaponry intended for RSF forces featuring arms “manufactured in Bulgaria and bought by an Emirati company,” said France 24. Before their confiscation by allies of the Sudanese government, the weapons had passed through an eastern Libyan zone “controlled by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, an ally of the UAE.”

Researchers have also found “clear evidence that sophisticated Chinese-made guided bombs and howitzers have been used in Sudan,” said Amnesty International. The presence of Chinese munitions adds to a “growing body of evidence showing extensive UAE support to the RSF, in violation of international law,” said Brian Castner, the head of crisis research at Amnesty International.

Will there be consequences?

“Evidence collected” by humanitarian groups shows “UAE-supported mercenaries from Colombia in and around El Fasher as the town fell,” said the nonprofit Refugees International. The reports suggest the UAE backed “enhanced drone capabilities that helped the RSF to carry out deadly attacks on civilians.” The organization has since called for “immediate accountability” by strengthening existing embargos and treaties, asking that “prominent companies and organizations like the NBA, Disney and Warner Bros.” stop their business with the UAE “until it has ended its armed support for the RSF.”

This week, Britain’s Sky News ended its participation in a joint TV news venture with the UAE. Network executives have grown “increasingly concerned about the editorial position Sky News Arabia has taken on news in the region,” said The Guardian. Coverage of reported atrocities committed by the RSF was “accused of whitewashing genocide.” The network “produced a report claiming the security and humanitarian situation had stabilized” in El Fasher and filed stories “suggesting there was no evidence on the ground supporting satellite imagery and testimony from survivors of the atrocities.”

Sky will cede “full strategic and operational control” of the network to its Emirati partner, International Media Investments, said Middle East Eye. IMI, which will temporarily be allowed to continue using Sky News branding, is owned by Emirati Vice President and Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

Two controversial US political commentators accused of spreading anti-Israeli rhetoric have been barred from entering the UK.

Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker had been due to appear at the SXSW London culture and tech festival this week, but had their visas revoked by the Home Office on the grounds that their presence “may not be conducive to the public good”.

Who are they?

Turkish-American Cenk Uygur hosts the left-wing “The Young Turks” political talk show. Launched in 2002 as a satellite radio programme, since 2005 it has been hosted on YouTube, with episodes livestreamed every weekday to an audience of more than six million followers.

Uygur has repeatedly framed Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide”, “barbaric” and “savage” and accused Israel of using Jews as “human shields”. In 2024, he briefly campaigned to become the Democrat nominee in the 2024 US presidential election.

His nephew, Hasan Piker, runs his own stream, watched by more than 30,000 people each day. SXSW organisers described the 34-year-old as “redefining what political commentary looks like in the digital age”, but he has “faced a backlash over some of his comments”, said The Guardian, including reportedly saying in 2019 that “America deserved 9/11”.

He has stood by his characterisation of Hamas as “1,000 times better” than Israel, and his claim that he “would vote for Hamas over Israel every single time”, arguing he is not antisemitic but anti-Israel.

Why have they been banned?

According to The Times, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood decided to ban the pair “due to fears they could fuel antisemitism”.

Home Office decisions to refuse or cancel an electronic travel authorisation, which allows foreign nationals visa-free travel to the UK for up to six months, are “based on an assessment of the potential risk an individual may pose to UK society”.

In April, Mahmood launched a taskforce to identify extremists who were planning to come to the UK, so she could ban them before they travel. In May, 11 “far-right agitators” were barred from entering the UK to join Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally in London. Islamist hate preachers have also been prohibited from entering the country, as has US rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, due to his history of antisemitic remarks.

In the case of Uygur it was judged his presence would risk exacerbating antisemitism due to his rhetoric since the 7 October Hamas attacks in 2023, which “has included repeating classic antisemitic tropes”, such as the claim that Israel controls America, said The Times.

What has their reaction been?

In a series of posts on X, Uygur said he has been banned from the UK “for criticising Israel”, related in part to his claim that “Israel controls the American government through donations to 94% of Congress”.

“Are we free any more? This is oppression of Western citizens by our own governments on behalf of a different country!” he added.

Replying to Uygur, Piker said the UK has revoked his visa “all at the behest of Israel”. “The West is betraying ‘liberal values’ for a genocidal fascist foreign government. Soon we will all become Israel.”

Was a ban the right move?

Left-wing outlet Novara Media’s Ash Sarkar, who was due to chair a discussion with Piker at SXSW, said that the decision was evidence of an “authoritarian turn motivated by Labour’s fear of being called antisemitic, and fear of being called out for their position on the genocidal war on Gaza”.

“You don’t foster community cohesion by having the government ban people from speaking,” she said.

“We can argue about who should be allowed into the United Kingdom, and where the line between offensive opinion and public danger should fall,” said broadcaster Jonathan Sacerdoti in The Spectator. But while “we can disagree on individual cases”, there “must be a distinction between protecting open argument and importing those whose public role is to turn conspiracy into cash”.

Investigators have raided the headquarters of Spain’s governing party as part of a probe into the alleged misuse of party funds, the latest in a “blizzard of corruption scandals” to hit the reign of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, said Politico.

“Scandal after scandal” involving political allies and relatives of Sánchez have left him “on the ropes”, said the outlet.

What are the scandals? 

An investigating judge has accused the former PM, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, of leading a criminal network that used his influence to arrange a €53 million Covid-era government bailout for the Spanish Plus Ultra airline. He is accused of receiving a total of €2.6 million from the network, and has been charged with criminal organisation, influence peddling and falsifying documents.

Zapatero, who denies the charges, is a close ally of Sánchez, who was in government when the airline was bailed out, so the scandal has embroiled the current PM.

Sánchez’s number three, Santos Cerdán, and another party figure, José Luis Ábalos, have been caught up in a public contract kickback scheme. To make it worse, evidence also emerged that Ábalos paid prostitutes. Both men deny involvement in the kickback scheme.

In a separate case last autumn, the attorney general, Álvaro García Ortiz, a government selection, was found guilty of revealing secrets.

And a party operative, Leire Díez, has been accused of being paid to “carry out a campaign of misinformation” with the intention of “impeding” the legal cases connected to the party, said the BBC. She has also denied any wrongdoing.

What about his family?

Last month, Sánchez’s wife Begoña Gómez was charged with embezzlement, influence peddling, corruption in business dealings and misappropriation of funds. She denies the charges and Sánchez has described this case as an “obscene farce”.

His brother, David, is on trial along with 10 other defendants, in an unrelated case, on charges of influence-peddling in his appointment to a musical director post in 2017. He denies the charges.

What does this mean for Spain?

Sánchez originally came to power on an anti-corruption ticket in 2018, after a corruption scandal brought down the conservative government of Mariano Rajoy. Although Sánchez has not been directly implicated in any of the investigations, questions over whether he knew about, tolerated, or benefited politically from the alleged actions of those around him are particularly damaging to his standing.

The tensions between the government and opposition parties on the matter are creating even deeper polarisation. With allegations that party operatives tried to undermine police officers or judicial investigations, broader questions are being raised about institutional independence and public trust in the courts, police and political parties.

Crucially, it is “increasingly awkward” for Sánchez’s allies to “stick with him” as the “scale” of the alleged corruption “comes into focus”, said Politico. Although officially Spain does not have to hold elections until next August, the prime minister “may be forced to move earlier”.

Meanwhile, he has dismissed the allegations as a right-wing plot to undermine his coalition, but the opposition conservative People’s Party said the government “stinks” of corruption.

Eagerness about artificial intelligence has led to a competitive push at tech companies to use as much AI as possible in a trend called tokenmaxxing. Employers are happily spending thousands to keep up with output, but whether the practice is sustainable is up for debate.

What is it?

At the core of the AI workplace trend are tokens. They represent small bits of text that AI models process during a prompt, tracking AI usage and calculating costs. AI companies “typically charge a monthly subscription for a fixed allotment of tokens,” with additional usage billed separately or available in higher-tier plans, Built In said.

Tokenmaxxing is about “encouraging engineers to consume as many AI tokens as possible,” said Forbes. Companies argue that “token consumption is a key indicator for measuring employee and developer productivity.” There is a growing sentiment that “teams that aren’t burning enough tokens simply aren’t automating enough and get left behind.”

Employees rack up tokens by deploying multiple agentic AI models on separate projects simultaneously or by running longer prompts. The trend came to public attention after The Information uncovered that a Meta employee had created an internal leaderboard ranking employees by token usage. Employees were incentivized to use more tokens to outperform coworkers and earn rewards such as digital badges and exclusive titles like “Cache Wizard.” The highest-ranked individual user averaged 281 billion tokens, “which could cost in the hundreds or thousands of dollars,” said The Information. The leaderboard has since been taken down.

Leaderboards are just the icing on the AI-workplace cake. Token budgets are “becoming another form of employee compensation, alongside stock options and yearly bonuses,” said Built In. While some workers go through millions of tokens a week, employers are “happily footing the bill,” believing that “more AI use means more productivity and, of course, more money for the business in the long run.”

Is it worth it?

The popularity of tokenmaxxing “reflects a desire to incentivize AI usage” and presents the assumption that “tokens are the base unit for AI usage,” meaning “greater consumption indicates higher value of AI,” Jim Rowan, the U.S. head of AI at Deloitte Consulting LLP, said to Forbes. While well-intentioned, there are “risks of turning tokens into a ‘vanity metric.’”

Still, some proponents of the competitive practice push back against such rhetoric. “We all should be tokenmaxxing,” Sonya Huang, a partner at Sequoia Capital, said to The Wall Street Journal. Artificial intelligence is an “insane new piece of technology that is fundamentally going to rewrite how we work.” What matters most for your company is: “Has my employee become insanely AI-pilled?” That requires “getting them on this tokenmaxxing mindset.”

The tokenmaxxing trend is a “crazy, rushed, temporary phase,” Michael Burry, the investor behind “The Big Short,” said in his Substack Short Thoughts. It is not “merely heavy AI use,” and it is “certainly not sustainable AI use.” It is “quota-driven, leaderboard-driven, management-mandated overconsumption.”

It’s true that the “cost of training AI models is falling, making AI tokens more affordable,” but people have started using “more tokens in their day-to-day tasks,” said The Week sister site Tom’s Hardware. Though AI is “indeed a useful tool,” some companies are “using it to replace people in a bid to cut labor costs.” If the number of tokens needed to accomplish tasks “outpaces the speed at which these tokens become cheaper, then that move might just backfire.”

Your house may have seemed just right for you when you bought it. But over the years, your situation can change. Perhaps you had a kid or started working from home full-time. Maybe one-and-a-half baths and a smaller kitchen did not feel restrictive when you made the purchase, and now it does.

In this situation, you are faced with two options: renovate your home for your current wants and needs, or move. While staying put may seem like the simpler option, it “isn’t always the easier or cheaper path,” said Realtor.com. Then again, relocating is also an undertaking in and of itself, even if it is just a few streets over.

When does renovating make sense?

The “biggest reason to put the time and effort into renovating or expanding your home is its location,” said U.S. News & World Report. If you are attached to the area where your home is, whether because of your kids’ school, nearby neighbors or favorite shops, it can make sense to commit.

For homeowners with “strong equity and a solid mortgage, remodeling can be a savvy way to level up your living space without resetting your entire financial picture,” said Realtor.com. There are improvements you can make that boost livability and enjoyment now, with some even pushing up resale value later, too.

When is moving a better choice?

It’s “easy to think that a remodel will solve everything you don’t like about your home, but in reality, it’s not a magic bullet,” said Zillow. The truth is, “there are some things that a renovation just can’t fix, like having loud neighbors, an unfavorable school district, more or less square footage or the type of home you’re living in.” In these cases, moving will likely be a better use of your time and money.

While a whole new house may sound like a much bigger-ticket item, in some scenarios, it is still the more financially sound option. “If the desired renovation project exceeds $100,000 to $150,000, it starts to make more financial sense to move, especially when factoring in time, stress and lifestyle disruption,” said real estate agent Mike Toltzis to U.S. News & World Report.

What should you take into account when making the decision?

When weighing whether to renovate or relocate, consider the following factors:

Cost: Cost is a major component of this decision. Even if a renovation looks cheaper on paper, it “isn’t always a value-adding slam dunk, especially if your home is already priced near the top of the market,” said Realtor.com. For moving, look at more than just the sale price — also factor in moving costs, realtor commissions and perhaps a larger mortgage payment if your next house is bigger.

Timeline: Buyers “often underestimate the cost and time involved in remodeling,” said realtor Ashley DeHart to NerdWallet. But a “real estate agent can help weigh these factors against the convenience and potential savings of buying a move-in-ready home.”

Current real estate market: If you’re in a “down market and can’t get the price you want or need out of your home to move to a better property or neighborhood, it might make more sense to renovate,” said U.S. News & World Report. In a competitive market, it can be smarter to “sell your home while prices are high and homes are in strong demand.”

Long-term plans: “Will this home still serve your needs in five or 10 years? Or are you stretching it to fit a life it’s already outgrown?” said Realtor.com. You will also want to ask yourself whether you are renovating “because you love your home — or because you’re avoiding a harder decision.”

With many police officers across the U.S. wearing body cameras, a cottage industry of YouTube channels streaming police interactions on bodycams has sprung up. These videos rack up thousands or even millions of views. But some law enforcement experts consider them exploitative.

How do these channels operate?

Bodycam channels all get their content “from the same basic model: Someone uses public records requests to obtain video from police arrests, lightly edits the video, adding maybe a brief AI narration or captions, and then hits ‘publish,’” said Vox. Many of the videos involve DUIs or intoxicated people “yelling, speeding, throwing things, hitting cops” and then “being arrested while crying, screaming, spitting and so on.” The channels also document “people being arrested for just about anything, from shoplifting to murder and kidnapping cases.”

Many of these channels do big numbers. One of them, Code Blue Cam, averages “over 10 million views a video and has totaled more than a billion across hundreds of videos,” while another called Midwest Safety “has totaled over 1.5 billion views,” said Vox. The channels claim to publish bodycam footage “based on their significance, the clarity of the footage and whether the interaction offers meaningful insight into how officers respond under pressure,” the owner of Code Blue Cam, who goes by LJ, told Wisconsin Public Radio (WPR).

Why are people concerned?

Many experts say the people uploading these videos “usually aren’t on a crusade for justice. They are interested in having footage of someone’s shoplifting arrest rack up millions of views for profit,” said Vox. The most viral videos “can be devastating for their subjects, damaging relationships with family and friends, frustrating job searches and scarring psyches,” said Intelligencer. And because bodycam footage is often public record, the people in the videos generally “have little legal recourse: Claims of defamation and false light,” the legal term for invasion of privacy, are “extremely difficult to prove.”

For victims, the “experience of having their worst moments broadcast to millions of strangers on the internet” can be “devastating,” said WPR, especially since they are often uncensored and include defendants’ real names. Women and people of color are most heavily featured, according to researchers. At least one bodycam channel came under scrutiny because it “only requested DWI stops involving young women, some being underage,” said WPVI-TV Philadelphia. Women are disproportionately seen, even though “some 80% of DUIs are committed by men,” said Intelligencer.

These channels also have a financial component. Code Blue Cam earns about $325,000 monthly, according to YouTube analytics tracker VidIQ. Many of the channels additionally “feature a list of affiliate links to earn commission from viewers purchasing products like security and dash cameras,” said WPR.

Some police departments are starting to fight back. Officials in Spokane County, Washington, recently passed a resolution “fee of 78 cents per minute of time it takes staff to obscure portions” of bodycam footage “that state law says should not be public,” said The Spokesman-Review. The fee is “intended to deter social media creators who make voluminous requests for footage.” The Illinois House of Representatives is also considering a bill that would “allow police to deny video requests from internet sites and social media channels,” said the Daily Herald.

The Court of Appeal is to review the sentences given to three teenage boys convicted of the rape of two girls in Hampshire. The judge’s original decision had prompted a public outcry and a rare intervention from the prime minister.

The boys, two of whom were 15 and one 14 at the time of sentencing, were given youth rehabilitation orders and walked free from court despite having 10 rape convictions between them. The judge said he wanted to “avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily” and support their reintegration into society.

But former safeguarding minister Jess Phillips said the sentences were “unduly lenient” while Keir Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions, said “there are questions about the sentence”. The case has highlighted the discretionary power the judiciary holds.

How much leeway do judges have?

Legislation sets maximum, and sometimes minimum, sentences for criminal offences based on the type, seriousness and circumstances of the crime. “But the law is written in a way that gives judges and magistrates considerable discretion when it comes to sentencing,” said the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Sentencing guidelines set by the Council help identify what type and length of sentence should be imposed to make sure a consistent approach is taken across all courts and crimes.

By law, judges and magistrates must sentence according to the guidelines, “unless it would be unjust to do so”, said the Council. However, they have the “discretion to depart from sentencing guidelines if they think it would be in the interest of justice to do so, given all the circumstances of a particular case”.

When deciding on a sentence, the judge or magistrate will consider things like “your age, if you have a criminal record, if you pleaded guilty or not guilty”, said Gov.uk. While they must follow sentencing guidelines, “they may also look at decisions made by the Court of Appeal in previous cases – this is called ‘case law’”.

“Judges never publicly comment on cases they oversee because to do so would potentially undermine the words they have used in court,” said the BBC, “but they always have to show in court the reasons why they have sentenced a defendant the way they did”.

How is it different for young offenders?

“While the seriousness of the offence will be the starting point,” said the Sentencing Council, when sentencing children or those aged under 18 at the date of the finding of guilt, the approach should be “individualistic and focused on the child or young person, as opposed to offence focused”.

There is an emphasis on rehabilitation “where possible”. The court should also “consider the effect the sentence is likely to have on the child or young person (both positive and negative) as well as any underlying factors contributing to the offending behaviour”.

Both domestic and international laws dictate that a custodial sentence should always be a “measure of last resort” for children and young people. Statute provides that a custodial sentence “may only be imposed when the offence is so serious that no other sanction is appropriate”.

Can a sentence be reconsidered?

The unduly lenient sentence scheme allows any member of the public to refer a sentence to the attorney general. The government’s top legal adviser then asks prosecutors to “advise whether it is in line with expectations, taking into account the discretion that judges have, or completely at odds with what would have happened in comparable cases”, said the BBC.

If the attorney general decides the sentence was “out of line, he will refer it to the Court of Appeal where three senior judges will look at what happened in a public hearing and rule on whether the sentence was right or unduly lenient”.

The right to appeal against a sentence “remains restricted to serious crimes tried in the crown court, such as murder, manslaughter, robbery, rape, stalking and most child sexual abuse offences”, excluding “hundreds of other offences, including some sexual crimes, causing death by careless driving and burglary”, said The Guardian.

The law was changed in April to extend the 28-day limit to submit a formal request for a review after an offender is sentenced to six months. It followed a campaign by relatives of murder victims who argued they were not aware of the scheme or had missed the deadline.

Nearly six years to the day after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis sparked racial protests across the United States, something similar is happening across the pond. The death of a Congolese man in Dublin led people throughout the Irish capital to take to the streets, in what many are calling the country’s own George Floyd-like reckoning.

What happened?

The protests began over an incident on May 15, when Yves Sakila was detained by “several security guards who suspected him of shoplifting at Arnotts, Ireland’s oldest and largest department store, in the heart of Dublin” after he “allegedly stole a bottle of perfume,” said The Associated Press. Sakila, a 35-year-old native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was seen on video “struggling and crying out in distress as he was held down by several men for nearly five minutes.”

At least two of the guards “held his face to the ground and at one point one of ​them appeared to kneel on his head or neck for a few seconds,” said Reuters. Police eventually arrived on scene, and Sakila was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Sakila’s death was seen by many as reminiscent of the murder of George Floyd, who died in 2020 “after being arrested by police outside a shop in Minnesota, prompting widespread protests under the Black Lives Matter banner,” said The Times.

How has Ireland reacted?

The incident has caused anger and protests in Ireland, with many demonstrators calling for racial justice. Following Sakila’s death, at least “several hundred people attended a rally” in Dublin organized by Black Coalition Ireland, said The Irish Times. The protesters are demanding “proper transparent investigation into his death,” Black Coalition Ireland spokeswoman Cllr Yemi Adenuga told The Irish Times, as well as “racial training for all gardaí,” referring to Ireland’s national police force.

The protesters additionally called for an “end to the ‘demonizing rhetoric’ used by politicians or would-be politicians against ethnic communities and equal treatment for all communities, not just on paper but in practice,” said The Irish Times. The Democratic Republic of the Congo “remains steadfastly committed to establishing the full truth” of Sakila’s death, the country’s foreign affairs ministry said in a translated post on X. Irish government officials are also getting involved, with Ebun Joseph, Ireland’s Special Rapporteur on Racism and Racial Equality, calling for an investigation.

The footage of Sakila’s death has “caused profound distress, fear and outrage across many communities, particularly among Black and minority ethnic communities who already experience heightened anxiety regarding racial profiling, excessive force, unequal treatment and over-policing in public spaces,” Joseph said in a statement, per Irish broadcaster RTÉ. His death raises “urgent and serious questions which require comprehensive examination.” Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin, the country’s prime minister, has also called for an investigation.

The incident will likely cause tensions to grow in a country that “continues to grapple with increasing political tension around immigration, following anti-immigrant protests and riots that erupted in Dublin in 2023,” said The Grio. Many are continuing to push for changes. “We call this a George Floyd moment,” David ​Kaliba, a former high school classmate of Sakila, said to Reuters. “I can’t believe ​it happened in America in 2020 and happened in Ireland in 2026.”

If you are living on a tight budget, going on vacation may seem totally out of reach. But you may just need to adjust your sense of scale. Rather than taking a week or more off work and trying to cover lodging, food and everything else for that entire time, consider stepping away for just a few days instead.

Known as a microvacation, such smaller-scale trips can be easier both logistically and financially — and they can still be plenty of fun. “One in five Gen Zers (21%) plan to take shorter trips in 2026 than in past years,” with one of the top reasons — cited by 37% of survey respondents — being the “spontaneity,” said Bank of America’s 2026 Summer Travel Outlook, per Investopedia.

What is a microvacation (or microcation)?

The defining feature of a microvacation, also referred to as a microcation, is its length. A microvacation “usually lasts one to four days,” said Kiplinger, and it “doesn’t require long flights, complicated itineraries or a big chunk of time off work.”

Often, a microvacation does not entail traveling to a far-flung location but rather sticking closer to home, with many opting for somewhere just a short drive away, given the condensed timeframe. But some travelers view the expedited timeline as a way to tick off places on their bucket list that much faster — in essence, they are “questioning the idea of saving all pleasure for one annual holiday, instead using shorter breaks to see more of the world in manageable, repeatable doses,” said the BBC.

Why are people opting for shorter trips instead?

For starters, “compared with weeklong vacations, microvacations can be cheaper, fit into a work schedule more easily and are simpler to plan,” said Investopedia. Beyond that, “some are inspired by the idea of stretching limited paid time off; others look to game loyalty points for quick trips to, say, Barcelona and London; and some are simply drawn to the challenge,” said The New York Times, noting the trend of “microvacationers posting about their itineraries on social media.”

While you may wonder how effectively you can really experience a place in just a handful of days, some microcation proponents argue the opposite. With fewer days, “each day is more impactful — you’re really in the moment, and you have more [money] to spend on what matters,” said microvacationer Sarah Pardi to the BBC.

How can you start planning a microcation?

When planning a microvacation, one of the best places to start is by determining why you want to take one. Consider “what you actually need right now: rest, connection, fun or simply a change of scenery,” said Kiplinger.

With that in mind, you can start preparing — but make sure not to get carried away. Microvacationers should “aim to anchor their trips to a single experience,” ensuring you aren’t trying to “cover too much ground in the limited time you have” and that you “don’t overplan,” said Laurel Greatrix, the chief communications officer for Tripadvisor Group, to the Times. After all, you do not want to spend a large chunk of your short time away in transit from one place to the next.

On 28 April, the UAE, which produces about 4% of the world’s oil, thanked the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) for “five decades of cooperation”, then resigned.

Opec is an intergovernmental group that imposes production quotas on members to keep oil prices “fair and stable”, it says; economists see it as a classic example of a cartel, a group that collaborates to reduce competition and raise prices.

Why did the UAE leave Opec?

The UAE is thought to have left because it wants to increase production, against the wishes of Saudi Arabia, Opec’s de facto leader, but it had also recently been attacked by another member, Iran. In theory, the UAE could now export more oil, lowering the commodity’s soaring price. But thanks to the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz (through which over half of the UAE’s oil and all of its gas usually passes), and the chaotic state of the peace negotiations between the US and Iran, energy markets barely moved. Some analysts, however, called it “the beginning of the end of Opec”.

Why was Opec created?

From the 1930s until the 1970s, a group of seven Anglo-American companies known as the “Seven Sisters” – the ancestors of today’s BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell – dominated the world oil market. They had secured long-term concessions across the Middle East, as well as in Venezuela and Indonesia, which meant they controlled over 80% of world supplies.

Producer nations were initially given only modest payments in return. After the Second World War, oil-producing countries increasingly chafed under the Seven Sisters’ grip, often demanding a larger share of revenues. In 1951, Iran nationalised its oilfields, which was reversed by a US- and British-orchestrated coup.

Around the same time, Saudi Arabia negotiated a 50:50 revenue-sharing deal with Aramco, the (then) US-owned Saudi oil company; this model soon spread. Even so, the Seven Sisters retained control over prices and production, as well as refining and distribution. Opec was created in response.

How did it come into existence?

In early 1959, in response to growing Soviet oil production, the Seven Sisters cut prices by 10%, infuriating the oil ministers of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, who started making plans that year in Cairo. In September 1960, shortly after another price cut, Opec was founded in Baghdad by Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in an effort to reshape the system in the producers’ interests.

The first international organisation led by what was then called the Third World, Opec worked incrementally at first, driving “participation agreements”, which gradually transferred ownership of oil companies to host governments. But it also expanded its membership: Qatar, Libya, Indonesia, Algeria and Abu Dhabi (the largest emirate) joined in the 1960s; Nigeria joined in 1971. By 1973, when an oil crisis shook the world, Opec controlled more than half of global oil production.

What happened in 1973?

In October, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and his Arab allies – enraged by US support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War against Syria and Egypt, and Israel’s continuing occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank – convinced Opec to hike the price of oil from around $3.01 to $5.12 per barrel; the Arab nations also imposed an oil embargo on the US and other nations that backed Israel.

By early 1974, the price had risen above $12 per barrel – a 300% increase. Although the embargo only lasted until March 1974, it triggered a two-year global economic crisis, creating oil shortages and spiralling inflation, and bringing the West’s postwar boom to an end, with all manner of long-term consequences.

The long tail of the 1973 oil crisis

It’s hard to overstate the effects of the 1973 crisis and the “stagflation” that ensued, which exposed the great vulnerability of Western nations, raised unemployment sharply and accelerated deindustrialisation. It has been plausibly linked to everything from a great shift in the world financial order to the invention of punk rock.

In the UK, it speeded up the development of North Sea oil and gas fields (discovered in 1965), and the adoption of natural gas for home heating; France pivoted sharply to nuclear power. Energy conservation only became a priority as a result of the crisis.

In the US, it permanently changed the car industry, opening up the market for lighter, more fuel-efficient – often Japanese – vehicles. This, in the long run, helped make the Toyota Corolla the bestselling car of all time.

There were also unanticipated consequences in Saudi Arabia, where the monarchy used the great oil wealth created to promote a puritanical, fundamentalist version of Islam. (Among the beneficiaries of the ensuing construction boom around holy sites were the bin Laden family.) This was partly to counter the spread of left-wing ideas in the Arab world, though King Faisal, a pious man, was said to be sincerely horrified by “the spiritual dangers of easy affluence”.

Did the strategy work?

The embargo’s main objective was to pressure the US into making Israel leave the Palestinian territories it had occupied in 1967. This didn’t happen, but Opec kept prices high through the 1970s: the decade saw one of the largest transfers of wealth in history, as “petrodollar” infusions from industrialised nations to nationalised oil firms allowed Opec members to fund massive infrastructure projects, build up their militaries, and establish welfare states.

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 also kept prices up. At the same time, rich countries took steps to become less dependent on oil; while soaring prices encouraged new exploration, from Alaska to the North Sea, and the Soviet Union became a major producer.

What effects did this have?

The resulting “oil glut” in the 1980s meant that Opec’s power drained away. Opec decreased oil production quotas to stabilise prices, but members failed to comply, producing above their limits; while non-Opec producers pumped out more to fill the gap. Saudi Arabia, frustrated and losing market share, opened the spigots in 1986, crashing the oil price. In the years after, quotas were largely restored – but Opec’s ability to affect world prices was relatively limited, and poorer members often chafed at the restrictions.

What is the situation today?

US shale fracking technology meant that, in 2018, it overtook Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world’s largest producer. Partly in response to these changes, Opec+ had been formed in 2016. A looser group that includes big producers such as Russia and Mexico, it controls about 40% of the world’s output; but the complex, diversified global system limits its power, while smaller Opec members complain that policy is decided by the “Big Two”, Saudi Arabia and Russia. This was one reason why Qatar left Opec in 2019, damaging the image of a unified Middle Eastern bloc; Angola and Ecuador have also left.

The UAE’s departure is on a different scale: it was the cartel’s third-largest producer. The immediate effects are limited by the Iran crisis. But without its “swing” capacity to increase production fast, Opec’s ability to act as a “global central bank for oil” is diminished.

For months, the Trump administration has increased pressure on Cuba through harsher sanctions, a crippling oil blockade and threats to “take” the island.

Now Washington has sharply escalated tensions by indicting the 94-year-old former Cuban president, Raúl Castro (brother of Fidel). The US Justice Department said the charges relate to the 1996 downing of two unarmed civilian planes by the Cuban military, when Raúl was armed forces minister. The incident, which killed four people, triggered one of the worst crises in US-Cuban relations since the Cold War.

Following the US capture and ousting of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro following a similar indictment, which deprived the Cuban Communist Party of a key ally, many fear the indictment suggests Donald Trump’s desire for regime change in Havana is intensifying.

Who is Raúl Castro?

Alongside Fidel, Raúl helped lead the guerrilla war that toppled the US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959, and launched the Cuban communist revolution.

As Fidel’s defence minister for decades, Raúl built a “powerful base within the military and Cuban state”, said Reuters. He also helped defeat the US-organised Bay of Pigs invasion. After Fidel became ill in 2006, Raúl stepped in as acting president before formally taking over in 2008. Although he resigned as president in 2018 and leader of the Communist Party in 2021, he is widely considered one of the most powerful men in the country, and one of the fathers of the revolution.

He retains the official title of “army general” and holds “significant influence” over the Communist Party and armed forces. The current president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, is “widely seen as relying on ​Castro’s guidance for major decisions”.

What happened to the planes in 1996?

After the collapse of its main financial supporter, the Soviet Union, Cuba suffered an “extreme economic emergency” of blackouts, and shortages of food and fuel, said BBC News Mundo – much like today. Thousands fled to Florida on rafts. A Miami-based group of Cuban exiles, Brothers to the Rescue, tried to help the migrants, and dropped anti-regime leaflets over the island. Havana “began denouncing the air incursions”, branding the group “terrorists”.

In 1996, Cuban fighter jets shot down two of the group’s planes, killing all four men on board – three of whom were US citizens. The attack sparked “strong international condemnation”, including against Raúl, and the US “significantly tightened” sanctions. Most organisations say the planes were in international airspace, although Cuba has always insisted otherwise. Many analysts believe Fidel was trying to “prevent a possible rapprochement with the US”, which could “spur political and economic reforms” that would “jeopardise his absolute power”. The case still “retains enormous symbolic and political weight” for Cubans, on and off the island.

What is the significance of the indictments?

Families of the four pilots who were killed “cheered the indictments, which they had been demanding for three decades”, said NBC News. It is a “politically powerful decision”; Florida’s large, politically active population of Cuban émigrés exert “outsized leverage” on US presidents, particularly Trump. Miami’s members of Congress would have the White House “do the same to Castro” as it did to Maduro, said The Miami Herald.

And the decision to unseal the indictments on 20 May “carries particular significance”, said The New York Times. On the same date in 1902, the US formally ended its years-long military occupation of the former Spanish colony. Many in the US still celebrate it as Cuban independence day. But for others, said Michael Bustamante, director of Cuban American studies at the University of Miami, the Trump administration is “hearkening back to this moment when the US did treat Cuba as its backyard”.

Will it lead to war between the US and Cuba?

This indictment could “doom any lingering chance of a deal to avoid armed conflict”, said CNN’s Havana Bureau Chief Patrick Oppmann. Trump claims Cuba is “desperate” to make a deal, but “he said the same about Venezuela and Iran”.

The charges have “fired up” the anti-Castro Cuban exile community in Miami. Many hope Fidel’s revolution is “crumbling”, with Trump’s oil blockade pushing the island “closer to the brink”. They are arguing “against any accommodation with Havana”. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban-American and “staunch foe of the Castros”, said the leadership “needs to go”.

The charges “lay the groundwork for a possible military operation by the US to extradite him”. But unlike in Venezuela, where Maduro’s military “quickly fell in line with Trump’s demands”, Cubans are “likely to react far more belligerently”. There is “little chance” that Raúl will be going anywhere, “much less a Miami courtroom”. Díaz-Canel has said US action would trigger a “blood bath”; the regime “may choose to go down fighting”. After all, in Cuba, every official speech “ends with the cry of ‘Fatherland or death!’”

For many people, taxes come due just once a year. But for others, it is necessary to make payments every quarter alongside the requisite filing due April 15.

Known as quarterly estimated tax payments, these are “taxes paid to the IRS throughout the year on earnings that are not subject to federal tax withholding,” said NerdWallet. Failing to make quarterly estimated tax payments when you owe them can result in a penalty, which is why it is important to know whether this applies to you. Here are the common situations in which quarterly taxes are owed.

People who do not have enough withheld

The general rule of thumb for owing quarterly estimated taxes is if “you’ll owe $1,000 or more in federal income taxes this year, even after accounting for your withholding and refundable credits,” said NerdWallet. You will also need to pay them if “your withholding and refundable credits will cover less than 90% of your tax liability for this year, or 100% of your liability last year, whichever is smaller.” That threshold increases to 110% for those with incomes over a certain amount.

This situation could apply even to those whose employers withhold a portion of their income if not enough is held back to fully cover the tax owed. The amount of money that is withheld largely depends on the information employees provide on their W-4 form.

Those who are self-employed or earn business income

Taxes “typically aren’t withheld from self-employment income, so if you do any freelance, consulting or gig work, you should either pay quarterly income taxes or increase your withholding on other types of income to cover the shortfall,” said U.S. News & World Report.

If you own a small business, you should also anticipate needing to make these payments. “Individuals, including sole proprietors, partners and shareholders of S corporations, must make estimated tax payments on business ownership earnings if the total tax on built-in gains, excess net passive income tax and investment credit recapture tax is $1,000 or more,” said Investopedia.

Investors who realize large capital gains or receive other investment income

Capital gains, which occur when you sell an investment for a profit, can result in owing quarterly tax payments. “Any realized capital gains that can’t be offset by exclusions or capital losses are generally taxable and can be a trigger for making quarterly tax payments,” said Natalie Taylor, a certified financial planner and behavioral financial advisor in Santa Barbara, California, per U.S. News & World Report.

Other types of investment income can similarly trigger estimated taxes. This may include dividend and interest income, and rental income for landlords with rental properties.

Individuals who have made taxable retirement withdrawals

If you’ve been “saving in a tax-deferred retirement account, like a traditional IRA, and you make taxable withdrawals,” you can also end up owing quarterly taxes, said U.S. News & World Report. The same applies “if you earn enough income while on Social Security.”

You can, however, avoid making quarterly estimated tax payments in this case if you request that enough to cover taxes gets withheld from either your retirement account withdrawal or Social Security benefits.

The MAHA movement, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been pushing for healthier food for schoolchildren, but the Trump administration’s budget cuts might make this difficult. Combined with a series of changing MAHA-adjacent nutritional guidelines, some schools are reportedly finding it hard to fund kids’ lunches.

Why are schools having trouble providing lunches?

A large part of the issue lies with the new MAHA health guidelines, which encourages people to “avoid highly processed foods and prioritize ‘high-quality, nutrient-dense’ protein at every meal,” said NPR. These guidelines form the “basis of federal nutrition standards that schools participating in federal meal programs must follow.” But many school districts “rely on processed, premade foods to feed their students, and protein is already the most expensive ingredient on the cafeteria plate.”

Currently, the government’s federal reimbursement rate for a free school lunch is about $4.70, which “must cover the food and the supplies, our labor and our equipment, deliveries and utilities, and the list goes on,” Stephanie Dillard, the president of the nonprofit School Nutrition Association (SNA), said in a congressional hearing. Many have “lauded the push toward scratch-made meals and more whole food options,” said Fortune. But these healthier foods are typically more expensive, and experts worry that trying to fit them into just $4.70 will “further strain schools already concerned with the future of their school lunch programs.”

The push for healthier meals is being juxtaposed with the White House’s decision to “cut funding programs that allowed schools to buy local food from farmers,” said NPR. The USDA has reportedly ended the “Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program, erasing an estimated $660 million in funding” that was used to buy “unprocessed or minimally processed foods” for schools. The cuts come as nearly seven in 10 school administrators, 69.6%, don’t think the $4.70 reimbursement rate is “sufficient to cover the costs” of school lunches, according to an SNA survey.

Is there a solution?

Many experts are pushing for increased funding for school lunches, which could help offset the cost of their increasing expense. The “issue here is the operational reality of getting there with the current level of funding,” David Ortega, a professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University, said to Fortune. “Not having enough staff, culinary training that comes with trying to do a lot of that more whole-food scratch cooking, the need for equipment and infrastructure — these are really operational issues that have to be addressed from a funding perspective.”

Enabling school districts to serve healthier foods is “what we’re trying to do,” Mara Fleishman, the CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, a school-food-reform organization, told The Christian Science Monitor. But doing so “requires support. It requires the right equipment. It requires funding.” Districts should be “shown how to create varied menus, identify where they can spend more on higher-quality ingredients, reassess labor costs and acquire the proper equipment.”

Government officials deny that budget cuts are hurting school lunch programs. “Out of a multitrillion-dollar government budget, it’s not surprising the media can find examples of cuts instead of ignoring the larger issue that the Trump administration is fighting for farmers and real food more than any administration in history,” senior White House adviser Calley Means told Bloomberg. The USDA has announced a $20 million farm-to-table program grant for schools, describing it as “record-breaking,” Bloomberg said, even though this still leaves a “$640 million gap compared to what was cut last year.”

The rate of inflation slowed in April despite concerns about the impact of the Iran war and oil shortages on household bills, but this dip may be only temporary.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) was 2.8% in April, down from 3.3% in March. The lower energy price cap introduced in April “helped soften the sharp rise in fuel costs since the start of the Iran war”, said The Guardian.

But the fall is expected to be “short-lived”, said CNBC, as the “economic implications of the Iran war materialise”.

It comes as the government announced that fuel duty will be frozen for a further four months until January 2027. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has laid out extra measures for low-income households to help mitigate the worst of the cost-of-living crisis.

What is inflation?

Inflation measures the changing price of goods and services. It is based on the CPI, which tracks a basket of goods, such as food, energy bills and transport costs, monitored by the ONS.

To see inflation in action, said MoneyHelper, “think about what you could buy with £1 over the past few decades”. A higher inflation rate means you can buy “less this year than you could last year for the same amount of money”.

At 2.8%, the inflation figure is above the Bank of England’s target of 2%, but is “well below” the 11.1% figure reached in October 2022, said the BBC.

Will inflation ever come down?

The latest drop in the rate of inflation was “more substantial than anticipated”, said The Independent, but the ongoing Middle East conflict “could soon reverse this progress”.

The reduction in the energy price cap in April was a “key driver” in the latest figures, said Financial Reporter, but “rising global energy costs” are likely to feed through into a higher Ofgem price cap from 1 July, which would push inflation higher.

It comes as Iran’s continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz means “more than half” of the normal oil supply is not getting through. Unless “something changes”, said Kiplinger, this means gas, fuel and food prices will “start rising in the future”. This can push up the rate of inflation.

Oil markets have been “heavily disrupted due to the Iran war”, said MoneyWeek. The commodity is used in the manufacturing of “a significant portion” of everyday items such as plastic, crayons, shoes, backpacks, iPhones, pillows and much more.

This “simple answer” to the question of whether inflation will come down, said Big Issue, is “probably never” and “almost certainly not by very much”.

Inflation still means prices are rising. The rate would have to be negative for prices to actually fall – known as deflation. This can “actually be a quite a bad thing”, as it means the economy is stagnant. In the past, this has been used as “political cover for austerity”.

The Bank of England has the power to “lift or lower interest rates”, said the BBC, to change how households and businesses use their money and control inflation.

But many of the “current pressures” on inflation are coming from outside the UK, meaning the cost of living is “widely expected to rise from here”.

The “vulnerability” of the civilian energy infrastructure was exposed this week when a drone strike on the United Arab Emirates cut off power to a nuclear reactor, said Bloomberg.

It’s the first time a fully operating nuclear power plant has had to rely on back-up generators because of a military attack, but reactors in Ukraine and Iran have also been threatened by recent conflicts.

Why would a nuclear site be targeted?

A country might target a nuclear power plant to cripple an enemy’s power grid, or to force a surrender through the psychological terror of threatening a radiological disaster. An attack on such facilities could also be used to delay a nation’s ability to enrich nuclear material.

Alternatively, armies may attack, or occupy, a nuclear plant to seize control of a strategic geographic corridor or to prevent defending forces from using the area.

What does international law say?

Under the Geneva Conventions, civilian structures, including nuclear power plants, “are protected against attack”, but the treaties also state that they can be hit “for such time as they are military objectives”. This is a “loophole” that “aggressor states” have “interpreted widely”, said Dan Sabbagh, The Guardian’s defence and security editor.

Attacking a nuclear power plant also breaks legal resolutions passed by the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors.

What would happen if a site were hit?

An attack on a nuclear site would not necessarily lead to a mushroom cloud or an immediate release of radiation because modern plants are built with multiple safety systems that can shut down reactors and contain damage.

But the reactor’s core could continue to heat up after a strike. This could lead to a build up of hydrogen gas, which could cause further explosions and damage. If the reactor began to degrade, radioactive material could be released and that can remain in the environment for years or even decades. It could potentially spread across borders and enter water systems or settle into the soil.

There are other consequences. Attacks on nuclear installations “risk undermining the emerging nuclear renaissance” in Western economies as an alternative to fossil fuels, said Bloomberg. Politicians and the public are “highly sensitive to radiation emergencies”, so an incident in one country “tends to dampen enthusiasm” for nuclear power elsewhere.

An attack on a nuclear plant would also be a hugely symbolic moment. Although conventional power plants have been “repeatedly bombed” by Russia during the Ukraine war, said Sabbagh, Kyiv’s three functioning nuclear plants have “remained relatively unscathed” because Moscow regarded a direct attack on them to be “taboo”.

Britain’s hospitals, schools and homes will need to be fitted with air conditioning to deal with expected rises in global heating, the government’s climate advisers have said.

With temperatures forecast to exceed 40C in all parts of the UK by 2050, a major report from the Climate Change Committee has warned the country is “built for a climate that no longer exists today and will be increasingly distant in years to come”.

What’s in the report?

Julia King, chair of the CCC’s adaptation subcommittee, said that, of the many climate threats laid out in the report, “extreme heat is certainly the most deadly” and requires the “need to see cooling rolled out at scale”.

“Sometimes this will mean shading, but sometimes it will mean air conditioning. And either way, we’ve got to get serious about protecting our most vulnerable people in hospitals, in care homes, and in schools.”

The CCC recommends air conditioning be installed in all care homes and hospitals within the next 10 years, and in all schools within 25 years. Exams should be set at cooler times of year, to stop students struggling to think in the heat.

The government should also set a maximum temperature for working indoors and outdoors, it said, following countries like Spain. There, the maximum legal working temperature indoors is 27C for sedentary work and 25C for light physical work.

Failure to take the necessary steps to stop people overheating could cause deaths from heat-related illnesses to rise to 10,000 a year by 2050, the committee warned.

Anything else?

As well as the risk from more intense heatwaves, the CCC found droughts are likely to become much more frequent. Last year the Environment Agency warned that England is on track for a daily shortfall in public water supplies of five billion litres by 2055 – equivalent to more than a third of current daily usage.

“We’re facing a potential world where you could turn on the tap and nothing would come out,” said King.

Global warming will also lead to more erratic rainfall and flash flooding. Seven million UK properties are currently at risk of flooding; if nothing is done, this could rise by 40% by 2050, the CCC said. Sea levels will also rise, threatening coastal areas that would no longer be protected by natural flood defences. Higher temperatures would also put domestic food production under threat.

How much would the changes cost?

“Adapting to a changing climate comes at a price,” said the BBC. The CCC estimates its recommendations would cost roughly £11 billion per year, split between the public and private sectors.

But every £1 spent would yield about £5 in benefits, the committee claims, and “the UK invests 50 times this amount every year” already, “some of it on infrastructure that exacerbates the climate crisis or vulnerability to it”, said The Guardian. “It’s very good value compared to the cost of the impacts of the climate that we’re already seeing,” said King.

There could also be a political cost to inaction. Sam Alvis, from the left-leaning think tank IPPR, told The Times that if the government did not step up efforts to adapt to hotter temperatures, it risked “stoking support” for populist politicians.

“When increasingly severe and frequent climate impacts strike, populists are quick to exploit public anger over a lack of preparation, using it to advance their own agenda and weaken support for climate action more broadly.”

When you have questions, AI is an easy place to turn for immediate answers. People are increasingly leveraging the variety of artificial intelligence platforms available for guidance in an area that can often feel complicated and confusing to navigate alone: personal finance.

As of early 2026, “more than 55% of Americans reported using AI to help with financial management decisions,” said CBS News. This can range from asking questions around homebuying to soliciting advice on investing and retirement savings strategies. However, while this practice may be convenient and in many cases useful, it is still essential to remember the cardinal rule of sensitive financial and personal information: Be cautious about what you share and where.

What are the risks of oversharing with AI?

A Stanford study examining the “privacy policies of six major AI companies — Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI — found that all six use chat data by default to train their models, and some keep this information indefinitely,” said The Washington Post. Based on this finding, the researchers issued a “cryptic warning,” suggesting that “either by design or negligence, your data could be exploited.”

Not only is the information living in these systems, but a “subset of conversations are sampled and reviewed by OpenAI and Google employees for quality improvement,” said Ramayya Krishnan, a professor of management science and information systems at Carnegie Mellon University, to Money. Additionally, there is always the risk that your AI account may become compromised. If a bad actor gains access and you had shared sensitive information, that “could empty a bank account or lead to identity theft,” said the Post.

What specific financial information should you avoid sharing with AI?

Given the risks, if you are consulting AI for financial guidance, steer clear of divulging the following:

• Your name, address and date of birth
• Social Security numbers
• Bank and investment account numbers
• Usernames and passwords
• Employment information
• Exact numbers, such as for your spending, debts or account balances
• Detailed financial documents, such as tax returns, investment account statements or paychecks

What is safe to share with AI for financial help?

Just because there are certain things you should not share with AI, that does not mean you cannot effectively leverage AI for guidance in your financial life. As a rule, “always treat AI chats as public-facing logs, avoid sharing any personally identifiable or financial details and verify critical advice with human professionals,” said Investopedia.

While you may tend to think the more an AI knows, the better support it can provide, the reality is that an AI chatbot “does not need your account number to tell you how to pay down debt, nor does it need your Social Security estimated earnings statement to recommend when to start collecting your retirement benefit,” said the Post. Instead, you can plug in more general questions that you can apply back to your own situation, or even give the AI ranges for figures like your salary or debt, rather than hard numbers, and still get similarly salient tips.

Lastly, keep in mind that the “bots are far from perfect: AI models often make factual errors, stumble when processing current events and oversimplify financial processes,” said Money. So take the advice with a grain of salt.

Sometimes one is just not enough. That is the conclusion many people are drawing when it comes to their sources of income amid ever-increasing economic uncertainty. In a growing trend known as income stacking particularly popular among Gen Z, people are picking up multiple jobs to ensure they can continue to make ends meet and live comfortably.

What is income stacking?

It’s the practice of “taking on multiple jobs to build financial security” through a “side hustle or freelance work on top of a full-time job, or several part-time roles,” said CNBC. One 35-year-old, for example, is “working two jobs — as an usher at an event space and a receptionist at the student center — while finishing her computer engineering studies at the University of the District of Columbia,” said CNBC.

Why is it becoming more popular?

This practice is not necessarily new, especially for younger people just starting out in their careers. But it is becoming more common, partially due to the rising costs of living. It is also happening because “Gen Z isn’t buying into what they see as a broken social contract, where a linear path up the career ladder is the most reliable route to success and financial stability,” said Fast Company.

Social media is additionally contributing. For the younger generations, “freelance employment has been modeled in the form of influencers, content creators and podcasters online,” said Fast Company.

What are the benefits?

The most obvious benefit is the extra money it provides. This can give savers some wiggle room in their budget to cover basic living costs or fund extras. It can also provide a safety net in the event of job loss, with an alternative income source to fall back on.

Used strategically, extra income can help with building wealth. “Extra income could go toward a brokerage account, retirement savings or paying off the student loans that have been dragging you down financially,” said NerdWallet.

As a bonus, juggling multiple jobs can offer a shortcut to building skills and job experience, which can translate into further opportunities down the road. For example, “thrift store arbitrage is a lesson in customer communication, pricing strategy, logistics, cash-flow management and marketing — talents any savvy business would appreciate in a workforce,” said Utah Business.

How can you decide if the practice is right for you?

The biggest consideration is whether you realistically have the time and energy. You might first “consider taking steps like having a career conversation with your boss or maximizing the money you put into a health savings account,” said Vered Frank, a CFP in New York City, to NerdWallet. The former option could allow you to eventually earn more without putting in more hours, while the latter would let you make better use of the funds you are already bringing in.

If you do pursue income stacking, make sure you understand what your added job will entail and why you want to take it on. “It’s easier to make income stacking work when you have a clear goal and timeframe in mind,” said Samantha Mockford, a CFP with San Francisco-based firm Citrine Capital, to NerdWallet. “You may hate sacrificing sleep when you drive rideshare in the evenings, but it may be tolerable if it means being debt-free before the year ends.”

Wes Streeting has dropped the “bombshell” that he’d like Britain to “one day” rejoin the European Union, said The Times.

The former health secretary and Labour leadership hopeful has “put the Europe question firmly back on the political agenda”. However, the process of reversing Brexit and rejoining the EU would be far from straightforward.

Is it possible?

Yes. Although no country has ever left the EU and then rejoined, it is possible. If the UK decided to seek membership again, it would need to apply through the framework set out in Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union.

However, the UK would need the support of all member states to “open and conclude accession talks”, and the UK’s “historical reluctance to integrate fully with the EU” could remain a “concern to the bloc”, according to the Institute for Government.

What would the process be? 

First, the UK would submit an application to the Council of the European Union. All existing EU member states would then need to agree unanimously to begin accession talks with London. At this stage, member states could decide to impose stricter eligibility criteria.

If the UK cleared that hurdle, it would enter negotiations over alignment with the EU’s legal and regulatory framework across a wide range of policy areas, including trade, fisheries, immigration and borders, environmental standards, and competition law.

Britain’s application would ultimately need unanimous approval from the Council of the EU, as well as the backing of a majority in the European Parliament. Realistically, the entire process would likely take several years at a minimum. Even relatively straightforward accessions can take close to a decade.

What would the UK have to agree to?

Although the UK previously enjoyed favourable terms within the EU, those concessions might not be available if it sought to rejoin. For example, the opt-out that kept Britain outside the Schengen border-free travel zone would probably not apply a second time.

Rejoining could also involve a commitment to adopt the euro. In addition, Britain would return without the 1984 rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher, which refunded roughly 66% of the UK’s net contribution to the EU budget. In 2020, the UK’s net contribution stood at £12.6 billion; any future contribution would likely be significantly higher.

Knut Abraham, a senior MP from Germany’s ruling Christian Democratic Union party, told The Times that, from a regulatory standpoint, the UK should have a relatively straightforward path back into the bloc because its laws remain largely aligned with Brussels. “I don’t foresee that many complications,” he said.

However, a senior European foreign ministry official predicted a less straightforward process: “I think we would welcome the UK with open arms – just not on their terms.”

Chinese president Xi Jinping told Donald Trump last week that he hoped the US and China could avoid the “Thucydides trap”. He was referring to an ancient Greek theory of war that has become a staple of geopolitical commentary in recent years. But what was he implying – and what do classical battles have to do with current US-China relations?

What is the Thucydides trap?

It’s the theory that, when a rising power threatens to displace an established power, the result is often war.

It is named after Athenian general and historian Thucydides, whose account of the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens 2,430 years ago included the observation that “the growth of power of Athens, and the fear that this instilled in Sparta, made war inevitable”.

The implication is that, if an established superpower “manages the rising power badly”, it can feel “obliged to go to war when that’s not necessarily the only option”, said David M. Pritchard, an associate professor of Greek history at the University of Queensland, on The Conversation.

The Thucydides quote was re-popularised in the 2010s by US political scientist Graham Allison. He identified 16 moments in the past 500 years when a rising power threatened to dominate a major ruling power, and pointed out that 12 of them resulted in war.

How does it apply today?

In 2026, the established superpower is the United States, and the rising power is China. There is tension between the two over trade and tariffs, and over China’s claims to sovereignty over Taiwan. Analysts believe there’s a danger of both sides misinterpreting each other’s actions. The US may see Beijing’s expansion as aggressive and a challenge to US influence, while China may see US alliances and military presence in Southeast Asia as attempts at containment.

So, according to the Thucydides trap, if Washington insists on a policy of confrontation with Beijing, war will be the likely outcome. Xi’s remarks were “an entirely unsubtle warning, and even a threat”, said Aaron MacLean on The Free Press. He was not voicing a “friendly expression of a shared desire for peace”; he was making it clear that, to avoid conflict, the US must “radically change” its “attitudes and actions”, and “accommodate” itself “to a Chinese-led world order”.

Is it historically accurate?

“Many scholars of ancient Greece take issue with the way the term is used today,” said Pritchard on The Conversation. The word “trap” implies Sparta “made a mistake in 431BC and could’ve handled things better”. But Sparta “had good reason to fear the rising Athenians”, who were “stripping allies off Sparta left, right and centre”. It was pressure from their remaining allies that pushed the Spartans to act against Athens. And, although it took them 27 years, they won.

Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned from the Peloponnesian War. It “may be foolish” for an established superpower to “check the rise of an emerging one”; although Sparta managed to do so, it came “at a terrible cost”. Decades of war wiped out much of its fighting population and forced it to depend on unreliable allies, triggering its eventual decline. If it had found a way to accommodate Athens and its ambitions, Sparta could have continued as a superpower “well into the fourth century”.

The UAE has denied Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that he made a secret trip to the Gulf state during the Iran war to meet the president, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

With The Wall Street Journal reporting that the UAE has carried out its own strikes on Iran, there is a renewed focus on the Abraham Accords – the peace and cooperation agreements between Israel and several of its Arab neighbours.

What are the Accords?

The Abraham Accords are a series of agreements between Israel, UAE and Bahrain, normalising Israel’s relations with several Arab nations. The initial accords, which were mediated by the US, were signed on 15 September 2020. Three months later, Sudan and Morocco joined the pact.

States such as the UAE and Bahrain saw the Accords as strategically useful but large parts of Arab public opinion remain strongly pro-Palestinian and opposed to closer relations with Israel. The Gaza war widened this divide and then the Iran war created a sense that the region was being dragged into instability through Israeli-Iranian confrontation.

So Arab governments face a growing dilemma because maintaining ties with Israel and the US risks a domestic backlash but breaking ties could damage security and economic interests.

Tehran’s “narrative” became that it could target “at will” the countries that had signed the Abraham Accords with Israel, said The Jerusalem Post. This reinforced fears in Saudi Arabia in particular that overt alignment with Israel could make the kingdom a direct target.

How might they be updated?

The original vision of the Accords – of a rapidly expanding regional bloc openly aligned with Israel and integrated economically across the Middle East – has become a significantly weaker prospect. So future agreements could involve cooler normalisation, selective security cooperation, quieter diplomacy and a slower expansion.

The power of China has also encouraged the players to think about an update. Beijing has “spent the better part of two decades cultivating Middle Eastern influence”, with infrastructure finance, arms sales and “diplomatic mediation”, said US conservative think tank the Hudson Institute. But an “expanded and strengthened” Accords would create a “competing network rooted in shared security interests and American sponsorship”.

What would it look like?

The Accords have “demonstrated resilience” despite the “turbulence” of the past two and a half years, including “growing criticism of Israel in parts of the Arab world”, said Roy Binyamini, a former National Security Council official, on Ynet.

But the US and its Accords partners could outline a “vision for regional stability, economic growth, interfaith tolerance and the containment of extremist influences”.

Meanwhile, Israel could “leverage its experience” to help regional partners in “strengthening civilian defence systems, including air defence capabilities and protection of critical infrastructure”.

After years of combined effort, an international coalition has come up with a new proposed name for one of the reproductive disorders affecting millions worldwide. Women’s reproductive health has long been a blind spot in the medical industry, but the group hopes that renaming polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) will help illuminate a better path forward in treating it.

Why the push to change the name PCOS?

For decades, millions of patients with symptoms like “irregular periods, pelvic pain, excess body hair and acne” have been diagnosed with PCOS, said The New York Times. Getting a diagnosis can be difficult, and those who do encounter stigma and imperfect treatment options along the way. An international consortium of doctors and researchers concluded that the condition’s name was part of the problem. Many PCOS patients “don’t have ovarian cysts at all,” but they often have “widespread hormonal and metabolic dysfunction.”

After more than a decade of “vigorous debate” over the need for a different name that more precisely describes the syndrome, a gathering of 56 organizations debuted the result: polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome, or PMOS, said Stat News. It was introduced in a policy paper published in The Lancet and presented at the European Congress of Endocrinology in Prague.

Since the previous name of the illness didn’t accurately describe the condition, it contributed to “delayed diagnosis, fragmented care and stigma, while curtailing research and policy framing,” the consortium members said in the paper. The change was based on input from dozens of organizations and experts, as well as feedback from more than 14,000 patients.

The new name “moves away from the incorrect focus on cysts” to recognizing this as a “much broader condition,” said lead study author Helena Teede, the director of Melbourne’s Monash Center for Health Research and Implementation, to The Guardian. The effects of PMOS on the body are “virtually all endocrine — hormonal.” Patients instigated a name change because they knew “how much they have suffered because of the name, and they were really passionate.” The efforts were “unprecedented,” and nobody has “put this much effort into a name change ever.”

In the policy paper, the authors lay out a plan for the World Health Organization and the International Classification of Diseases to adopt the new name over the next three years, potentially making it the international standard by 2028.

How will the name change affect treatment?

The researchers hope the name change will “transform how patients understand the condition” and “how doctors treat it,” said the Times. When a condition affects one organ, everything from research funding to education to clinical guidelines is “all in that box,” Teede said to the outlet. “And in this condition, it was in the wrong box.”

The change could also have “immediate implications for some patients,” prompting doctors to “recommend more screening for metabolic and cardiovascular problems,” said the Times. Renaming it should “redirect” professionals “into thinking about this as a long-term chronic condition and not just a period problem,” Basma Faris, an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said to the outlet.

Funding for studying the disorder and treatments will no longer be limited to sources focused on ovarian health, Teede said to Time. Despite affecting “170 million reproductive-age women” and creating a “health and economic burden” that is “huge,” the illness hasn’t had much investment in research. Getting it categorized differently means “we get more evidence on how to treat it.”

Women’s health is “notoriously underfunded,” Christina Boots, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Northwestern’s Feinberg School of Medicine, said to CNN. Recognizing that it “spans not just reproductive issues, but mental health and metabolic health as well,” may help “enhance the number of dollars and the number of studies that are to understand it and treat it.”

About 5 million to 6 million American women have PMOS, according to the Endocrine Society and the CDC. It affects up to 12% of American women of reproductive age. Despite how common it is, the condition “remains misunderstood and underresearched,” said The Cut, and the World Health Organization estimates that nearly 70% of women who suffer from it have never been diagnosed. Even though the “diagnostic criteria have not changed,” experts hope that a new, more accurate name will “help more people get a diagnosis sooner.”

Summer: the season of sunshine, swimming pools, barbecues and a bracingly high electric bill. As temperatures rise and humidity increases, running the air conditioning can become a necessity for some households — and not a cheap one. This year, that bill could get even higher.

The “average seasonal cost for electricity, covering June through September, is projected to be 8.5% higher this year, rising to $778,” said the National Energy Assistance Directors Association in a recent forecast, per The New York Times. Those increases are likely to be felt disproportionately by southern states, with Texas and Oklahoma “expected to see an 11.5% jump to $924,” said the outlet.

While there is not much consumers can do about the primary drivers of these price hikes — namely, “utility grid updates and demand from new data centers that power artificial intelligence, as well as increased use in the summer because of higher temperatures,” said the Times — there are steps people can take to make their bills at least a little more manageable. Here are three.

1. Stay on top of system maintenance

Keeping your air conditioner running as efficiently as possible can go a long way toward better electric bills. Regularly changing air filters is key here, as any blockages can stress the system, causing it to work harder and use more energy.

In general, “air filters should be replaced every two to three months but may require more frequent attention if your air conditioner is used consistently, in a dusty environment or if you have pets in the home,” said Rob Munin of Johnson Controls, a technology and energy company, to Better Homes & Gardens.

2. Minimize sunlight exposure indoors

Just like a “car parked in the sun on a hot day, your home can heat up if you don’t close your blinds while you’re away,” said Matt Malinowski, the building program director at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, to CNBC Make It. Before your house starts cooking, look for some easy ways to minimize direct sunlight.

This can include “using indoor plants to create shade, keeping your curtains closed to block out the sunlight during the day and investing in reflective blinds or UV-reflective film for windows,” said CBS News. You might also consider outdoor additions, like “extending roof eaves or adding a trellis or awning to shade windows,” or “planting trees on the south and west sides of your house,” said Better Homes & Gardens.

3. Consider a thermostat upgrade (or adjustment)

You will pay a little bit for a smart thermostat up-front, but over the long run, having one could end up saving you. That is because “smart thermostats can ‘do the work for you’ by programming to turn on and off based on your schedule,” said Piero Caballero, the senior product manager at Johnson Controls, to CNBC Make It.

Of course, you can always adjust the thermostat yourself, especially when you leave the house. “In states with high summer temperatures, the energy directors association recommends keeping your thermostat at 70 to 78 degrees Fahrenheit when people are home and at 78 when the house is empty,” said the Times. Even a slight temperature change can make a difference, given “every degree of increase between those temperatures saves about 3% on your electric bill.”

Between inflation and gas prices, the cost of living can feel hard to keep up with. Add the rapidly rising costs of homeownership to the equation, and it is no surprise that some people are falling behind.

In the first quarter of 2026, “U.S. foreclosure filings hit a six-year high,” said The Wall Street Journal, citing property-data provider Attom. The “number of U.S. properties with a foreclosure filing rose to almost 119,000,” a “26% jump from the same period a year earlier.” The culprit? “Fast-rising homeownership costs such as property tax and insurance bills.”

If you are finding yourself in a financial bind or worry one is just one unexpected expense away, here is what to know.

What happens in foreclosure?

Foreclosure is the consequence of not making mortgage payments. After a prolonged period of non-payment, a mortgage lender will repossess, or foreclose, on a home to recoup their losses.

This does not just happen overnight, however, and homeowners will have a heads-up. Before anything happens, the lender will let a borrower know there is a risk of foreclosure, usually after the loan enters default, which occurs after “three to six missed mortgage payments,” said Bankrate. This alert “marks the beginning of the preforeclosure process, but the borrower still has time and options to avoid losing their home,” said Rocket Mortgage.

At this juncture, the borrower and lender can work together to find a solution. But if this does not happen, the process of foreclosure can move forward. In that case, “your lender will file a notice of sale” and “your home will be placed up for auction at a specified time and place,” said Bankrate. After your home is sold, “you’ll generally have a few days to gather your belongings and move to a new residence,” or face eviction.

What are the impacts of foreclosure?

Foreclosure carries some heavy consequences. For one, you will lose your home, which served as collateral, backing the mortgage loan you took out and were unable to repay as promised. “Not only will you lose your place to live, but you’ll also lose the money and effort you put into it,” said Bankrate.

Then there is the effect on your credit. “Like bankruptcy, foreclosure has one of the most serious negative impacts on your credit,” and it will remain on your credit report for seven years, said Experian.

Additionally, “depending on your state’s laws, you may owe money if your home sells at the foreclosure auction for less than you owe,” a gap known as a “deficiency,” said Bankrate. If you are unable to pay any deficiency, “you may be sued, face wage garnishment and more.”

How can you avoid foreclosure?

Thankfully, there are some steps you can take to avoid the nightmare that is foreclosure.

Proactively communicate with your lender. “As soon as you think you’ll have trouble making your monthly payment (or shortly after you fall behind), call your mortgage servicer,” said Nolo. They can walk you through your options before it is too late, whether that is working out a repayment plan or modifying your existing loan.

Get help from a housing counselor. A housing counselor can help you determine what your options are and how to access them. “You can contact a local HUD housing counselor or dial the HOPE hotline at (888) 995-HOPE to connect with a housing expert for 24/7 help,” said Bankrate.

Apply for forbearance. If you fell behind due to a passing financial crisis, a forbearance “offers temporary relief — usually via a payment pause or reduction — to help you get your finances in better shape,” said Yahoo Finance.

Consider a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. “If you can’t catch up on your mortgage payments or don’t qualify for any options to prevent foreclosure, you may want to consider signing a deed instead of foreclosure, where you can hand over the property to the lender voluntarily,” said Rocket Mortgage. This won’t allow you to hold onto your home, but you will “avoid some repercussions of foreclosure.”

From Meghan Trainor and Zayn to the Pussycat Dolls, artists are canceling their concert tours because of unsold tickets. This so-called blue dot fever — taking its name from the blue dots that represent available seats in a performance venue’s seating chart — reflects a lack of affordability and the reduced power of nostalgia.

Why are seats not selling?

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,” said J.R. Lind, a senior writer at Pollstar, 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 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.”