Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

OnlyFans, the UK-based adult video platform, has reached a valuation of over $3 billion as it engages in advanced talks to sell a minority stake to US investment firm Architect Capital. The London-based company is looking to offload less than 20% of its shares, with sources confirming the talks to the Guardian.The deal comes at a significant time for OnlyFans, following the death of its founder, Leonid Radvinsky, a Ukrainian-American billionaire who passed away from cancer last month at the age of 43. Radvinsky's death has prompted the company to seek a minority stake sale as a means to guarantee stability for the business.OnlyFans has reportedly chosen Architect Capital for its expertise in the financial services sector. This aligns with the UK company's plans to offer banking products to its creators, who have historically struggled to access such services due to the nature of their work.The platform, synonymous with adult content, operates with a strict 18+ age limit and has 4.6 million creator accounts registered. These creators split their subscription proceeds 80:20 with the platform. OnlyFans also boasts 377 million fan accounts, allowing users to purchase videos and send messages to their favorite performers.In terms of financial performance, OnlyFans posted $1.4 billion in revenues for the year ending November 30, 2024, with a pre-tax profit of $684 million, marking a 4% increase from the previous year. The platform also reported $7.2 billion in payments to creators, a nearly 10% increase.Radvinsky himself received $701 million in dividends from OnlyFans in 2024, adding to the over $1 billion he had previously received. The company had previously explored sale talks with various investors, including a potential 60% stake sale to Architect Capital and a consortium led by Forest Road Company.If the minority sale proceeds, control of OnlyFans will remain with the family trust holding Radvinsky's shares. OnlyFans has declined to comment, while Architect Capital has been contacted for a statement.

Colombia, the largest coal and fourth biggest oil exporter in the Americas, is hosting a groundbreaking global conference this month to drive the long-awaited 'transition away from fossil fuels'. The conference, co-hosted with the Netherlands, aims to break the deadlock in UN climate talks and bring together countries willing to forge ahead with the energy transition.The conference comes at a critical time, with nations embroiled in another oil-inflected war and fuel prices soaring worldwide. Irene Vélez Torres, Colombia's environment minister, said the conference comes in the best possible moment, highlighting the stark choice world leaders face between oil, gas and coal and cleaner, safer renewable energy.Countries are paying the price for oil addiction, not just in their energy bills but in food prices, consumer inflation, shortages, and businesses threatened with collapse. The oil crisis, sparked by the US-Israeli attack on Iran, is spotlighting the risks of fossil fuel dependency.Some countries, like the UK, are already making the switch to renewable energy, with record numbers of households turning to solar panels, electric vehicles and heat pumps. Global power generation from coal and gas has fallen, while renewables have surged ahead, with solar generation up 14% and wind by 8%.The conference aims to bring together countries that want to forge ahead with the energy transition, with 54 countries confirmed to attend, representing about a fifth of global fossil fuel production and a third of demand. However, some of the world's biggest economies and biggest polluters, including the US, China, India, Russia and the Gulf petro states, will be missing.Colombia and the Netherlands hope to create a 'coalition of the willing' to drive the transition away from fossil fuels, with a focus on tangible outcomes, including a report by scientists on how countries can make the transition and a report from finance experts on how funding can be made available.

Mr Cobra arrives as the latest statement from Korean‑American experimental musician Lucy Liyou, translating her solo music‑theatre piece into a full‑length album that confronts the corrosive nature of desire. From the opening track, listeners are greeted by a fractured piano motif that feels like shattered glass against an empty canvas, immediately setting a tone of tension and vulnerability.The record refuses to settle into any single genre. Liyou’s soundscapes swell into glossy disco bursts, dissolve into a tongue‑in‑cheek Taylor Swift skit, and even collapse into farmyard noises and text‑to‑speech monologues. This kaleidoscopic approach mirrors the emotional volatility of the central character, Babygirl, who oscillates between yearning and revulsion as she navigates a predatory romance.Key moments illustrate the album’s thematic focus on shame and power dynamics. On “Constrictor (Haha)”, Babygirl’s submissive cravings are drenched in cold‑water imagery, only to be abruptly repelled in the whimsical “Old MacDonald Had a Charm”. By the close of the track she is once again flirting, underscoring the cyclical trap of abusive attraction. Liyou also toys with celebrity culture; the track “Romeopathy” reworks Swift’s “Love Story” into a desperate plea for validation, repeatedly urging Mr Cobra to “just say yes”.While the album’s nursery‑rhyme hooks and disco interludes can momentarily distract from its darker undercurrents, they are integral to the smart, playful chaos that defines Liyou’s artistic vision. Mr Cobra stands as a daring, semi‑autobiographical exploration of how desire can both enthrall and erode, offering listeners a richly layered experience that rewards repeated, attentive listening.

Angelina Jolie leads the new fashion‑driven drama Couture, bringing a rare level of personal honesty by confronting a storyline that mirrors her own double mastectomy performed to prevent breast cancer. While her performance is undeniably courageous, the film’s overall execution falls short of its ambitions.The plot follows Maxine, an American indie filmmaker (Jolie) who arrives in Paris to direct the opening short for a prestigious runway show. She discovers, through a compassionate doctor played by Vincent Lindon, that a recent biopsy confirms she has breast cancer, forcing her to consider postponing or abandoning her next project. Jolie conveys the shock and denial with subtlety, yet the script, penned by director Alice Winocour, often lapses into glib dialogue that undermines the emotional weight of the situation.Supporting characters include Ada, a fledgling South Sudanese model (Anyier Anei), makeup‑artist‑turned‑writer Angèle (Ella Rumpf), and the brooding first‑assistant director Anton (Louis Garrel). Their subplots—most notably Ada’s ankle injury that threatens the runway performance—remain underdeveloped, serving more as decorative set‑pieces than integral narrative threads.Visually, the film captures the glamour of Parisian haute couture with polished cinematography, yet this sheen accentuates the story’s lack of depth. The fashion world is presented with a “precious” aesthetic that feels specious, offering little insight beyond surface‑level allure.Despite these shortcomings, Jolie’s star power shines through. Her willingness to align a fictional role with a deeply personal health battle adds a layer of authenticity that the surrounding screenplay fails to sustain. ‘Couture’ will be available on digital platforms from 20 April, offering audiences a chance to appreciate Jolie’s performance even if the film’s broader ambitions remain unfulfilled.

As the 2026 FIFA World Cup approaches, the cost of public transport to match venues in the New York‑New Jersey corridor is set to eclipse $100 for a single trip, prompting a sharp response from U.S. officials. Governor Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey took to X, demanding that FIFA shoulder the expense, warning that commuters should not be left with a multi‑year financial burden. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed the governor’s concerns, calling on the soccer federation to cover transportation costs after noting that FIFA stands to earn roughly $11 billion from the tournament while local transit agencies face a $48 million bill to move an estimated 40,000 fans per match. According to a report by The Athletic, a train ticket from New York’s Penn Station to MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford could top $100 on World Cup days, a stark jump from the regular $12.90 fare. Similar price hikes have been reported in Massachusetts, where tickets from Boston to Foxborough may reach $80 and bus fares could climb to $95. Sherrill highlighted that the existing host‑city agreement, signed in 2018, originally required free fan transportation. In 2023 FIFA amended the terms, allowing match‑ticket holders to pay for travel, a change she argues unfairly shifts costs onto taxpayers. New York Governor Kathy Hochul also voiced criticism, describing the proposed fares as “awfully high” and urging that the event remain affordable and accessible. Schumer added that New York commuters should not subsidize FIFA’s windfall, emphasizing the need for the federation to “step up and cover transportation costs for host cities and states.” In response, a FIFA spokesperson said the organization was “surprised” by the governor’s remarks and reiterated that the federation has long collaborated with host cities on mobility plans, including securing federal funding for transport infrastructure. The statement noted that the revised host‑city agreements permit fans to access public or additional transport at cost, but did not commit to direct financial contributions. The dispute underscores a broader tension between the massive economic benefits promised by the World Cup—projected to draw millions of fans to North America—and the immediate financial impact on local commuters. As the tournament, co‑hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, prepares for kickoff in June, the outcome of these negotiations could set a precedent for how future mega‑events address public‑service costs.

Social media erupted this week after US media outlets reported that FIFA had prohibited tailgating at the 2026 World Cup stadiums. Fans quickly challenged the claim, pointing to FIFA’s own statement that it "does not have a formal policy that restricts tailgating".FIFA clarified that while there is no global ban, individual venues may impose restrictions in line with local public‑safety regulations. The organization added that detailed fan guidance will be released well before the tournament kicks off.In the United States, tailgating is a long‑standing pre‑match tradition where supporters park near the stadium, grill, drink and socialize for hours before kickoff. The practice, especially popular at NFL games, is considered an essential part of the American match‑day experience.American fans argue that banning the activity would strip away a cultural hallmark. One Philadelphia supporter wrote on X, "FIFA doesn’t understand that you physically cannot stop Philadelphians from tailgating." Others noted that international visitors often enjoy the festive atmosphere, citing videos from the 2025 FIFA Club World Cup.Nevertheless, the Boston organising committee has already announced that tailgating "is not permitted for these events," highlighting the patchwork of local rules that could affect the World Cup.Security protocols for major tournaments require two concentric perimeters around each stadium: an outer ring focused on crowd safety and an inner ring for ticket verification. The exact placement of the outer perimeter depends on each venue’s layout, parking capacity and access routes, and it is designed to keep "unauthorised persons" away from the stadium building.Because FIFA cedes day‑of‑match security decisions to local organising committees, the final stance on tailgating will likely be decided by city officials and may not be disclosed until closer to the event.The United States will host 78 of the 104 matches across 10 venues, including the newly renamed Los Angeles Stadium (formerly SoFi Stadium) for the opening match and the New York‑New Jersey Stadium (formerly MetLife Stadium) for the final. Other sites are Boston’s Gillette Stadium, Philadelphia’s Lincoln Financial Field, Dallas’s AT&T Stadium, Seattle’s Lumen Field, Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium, Miami’s Hard Rock Stadium, Atlanta’s Mercedes‑Benz Stadium, Houston’s NRG Stadium, and the San Francisco Bay Area’s Levi’s Stadium.Until local authorities release definitive guidelines, the fate of tailgating at the 2026 World Cup remains an open question, leaving fans to await clarification on whether their beloved pre‑game rituals will survive the tournament’s security framework.

The US State Department has introduced visa restrictions for individuals from countries in the Western Hemisphere who support US adversaries, undermining America's interests in the region. This move is part of the Trump administration's efforts to expand US influence across the Western Hemisphere.The policy change comes as President Donald Trump seeks to assert US dominance in the region through his 'Donroe Doctrine', a modern interpretation of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. The doctrine aims to counter growing Chinese influence in Latin America and combat drug trafficking.The State Department has identified 26 individuals who have already had their visas revoked under this new policy. These individuals are accused of 'knowingly directing, authorizing, funding, or providing significant support to' US adversaries in the Western Hemisphere.Activities that could lead to visa restrictions include enabling adversarial powers to acquire strategic resources, destabilizing regional security efforts, undermining American economic interests, and conducting influence operations to undermine the sovereignty and stability of nations in the region.This move continues a trend under the Trump administration of revoking visas from foreign critics and political opponents. Examples include the revocation of visas for pro-Palestine protesters and individuals with ties to the Iranian government.The Trump administration has also taken a more militaristic approach towards Latin American governments deemed adversarial, including a recent attack on Venezuela and a fuel blockade against Cuba. These actions have resulted in significant humanitarian concerns, including dozens of deaths in Venezuela and at least 177 people killed in lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats.

Lionel Messi has officially taken ownership of UE Cornella, a Barcelona‑based club competing in Spain’s fifth division, after finalising the purchase earlier this week.The Argentine legend, who spent two decades at FC Barcelona amassing multiple La Liga titles, Champions League trophies and Ballon d’Or awards before departing in 2021, is now venturing into club ownership.In a statement the club described Messi’s arrival as “the beginning of a new chapter in the club’s history,” emphasizing a long‑term vision and a strategic plan that blends ambition, sustainability and a deep connection to its working‑class neighbourhood roots.Founded in 1951, UE Cornella has previously nurtured talent such as Arsenal goalkeeper David Raya and former Barcelona defender Jordi Alba, the latter of whom currently shares the pitch with Messi at Inter Miami.Now 38‑year‑old Messi is also focused on representing Argentina at the 2026 World Cup in North America, where the Albiceleste will defend their title.The club announced the deal on Thursday but did not disclose the financial terms of the transaction.

A Senate vote on Wednesday failed to block a proposed sale of military bulldozers to Israel, with the measure losing 40‑59. Only seven Democrats crossed party lines to side with the Republican majority, underscoring a notable, though limited, shift in congressional sentiment.Progressive Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the bill amid mounting outrage over Israel’s use of bulldozers to raze villages in Gaza and Lebanon—actions described by rights groups as ethnic cleansing. While the resolution did not pass, 36 Democratic senators also backed a separate effort to stop 1,000‑lb bombs from reaching Israel, more than double the support such measures received last year.Advocacy organizations seized on the vote as a historic moment. Hassan el‑Tayyab of the Friends Committee on National Legislation said the tally shows a majority of Senate Democrats now oppose unconditional aid, aligning with broader American opinion. A recent Pew Research Center poll found 60 % of U.S. adults hold unfavorable views of Israel, with even higher negativity among voters under 50.Republican senators remained uniformly opposed. Senator Rick Scott accused the Democratic supporters of siding with terrorism, arguing that the blocked sales would have helped allies confront threats. The partisan divide highlights the political risk for Republicans who break with former President Donald Trump on Israel policy.Prominent lobbying groups also weighed in. The pro‑Israel lobby AIPAC warned that curbing arms sales would jeopardize Israel’s security, while liberal Zionist organization J Street welcomed the growing willingness to question unconditional assistance. Jewish Voice for Peace’s political director Beth Miller called the vote an "inflection point," suggesting it reveals "massive cracks" in the long‑standing U.S.–Israel alliance.Within the Democratic caucus, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer faced criticism for voting against the resolution, prompting calls from progressive lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna for his resignation. Demonstrators outside Schumer’s and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s offices demanded they support the bill, reflecting intensified grassroots pressure.The episode signals a potential realignment in U.S. foreign‑policy calculations. As public fatigue with the Gaza war, the Lebanon conflict, and the stalled Iran confrontation grows, lawmakers appear increasingly wary of using American tax dollars to fund overseas military operations that could entangle U.S. troops and erode domestic support.