Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The connection between boxing and cinema dates back to the early days of film, with the first sports film being a 1894 short of a six-round match between Mike Leonard and Jack Cushing. Since then, boxing has been a staple of the big screen, captivating audiences with its high-stakes emotion, physical intensity, and personal turbulence.The British Film Institute's new season, The Cinematic Life of Boxing, curated by Clive Chijioke Nwonka, an amateur boxer since his childhood in London, explores this symbiotic relationship. Nwonka believes that an uncompromising hunt for realism is central to the relationship between the sport and artform, with films that interact with human experience, poverty, struggle, triumph, and boxing as a way of life.Boxing films often capture a political zeitgeist, as seen in the 1974 'Rumble in the Jungle' heavyweight championship match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, which was not just a fight but a referendum on ideology during the civil rights era. This fight was documented in the 1996 film When We Were Kings, described by Nwonka as 'probably the greatest sports documentary of all time'.The Rocky franchise, which has spanned six films and a spin-off series, Creed, under the direction of Ryan Coogler, is a barometer for all the films captured in its wake. The first film remains the hallmark of sporting cinema, successfully capturing the habitual experience of the sport outside its more glamorous moments.Despite the genre's popularity, boxing films are not immune to clichés, with many relying on stock characters and familiar arcs. However, the best film-makers are able to return to the core of these films: the stakes of signing up for a fight, and the physical, psychological, and real monetary costs of endurance.

Paris Saint-Germain's highly anticipated visit to Lens in Ligue 1 has been postponed to May 13, allowing the team more time to focus on their upcoming Champions League quarter-final against Liverpool. The match, initially scheduled for April 11, could have significant implications for the Ligue 1 title race, with PSG currently leading Lens by a single point.The decision to reschedule the match has been met with some resistance from Lens, who expressed concerns that the French league is being treated as an adjustment variable to accommodate the European imperatives of certain teams. The Ligue de Football Professionnel justified the move by citing the strategic goal of helping France maintain its fifth place in the UEFA coefficient rankings, which would secure four places in the Champions League.PSG is set to face Liverpool in the Champions League quarter-final on April 8 at the Parc de Princes, with the second leg taking place at Anfield six days later. This extra time could prove crucial for PSG as they look to advance in the competition.In addition to the PSG-Lens match, Strasbourg's visit to Brest on April 12 has also been rescheduled to May 13, as Strasbourg prepares for their Europa Conference League last-eight games against Mainz.

Renowned violinist Anne-Sophie Mutter continues her dedication to contemporary music with a bold new series on Alpha Classics titled 'East Meets West'. This album brings together four works specifically written for her, reflecting the diverse heritages of the composers.The album opens with Aftab Darvishi's 'Likoo', a six-minute solo piece that evokes a folk poetry genre from Iran. Originally composed before recent global conflicts, it now resonates with poignant significance. Next is Unsuk Chin's 'Gran Cadenza', a nine-minute duo with Mutter and Chinese-American violinist Nancy Zhou, characterized by a high-wire performance.The textures expand as Mutter is joined by Ye-Eun Choi, Muriel Razavi, and Pablo Ferrández for Jörg Widmann's 'String Quartet No 6'. Titled 'Studie über Beethoven', this piece reinterprets Beethoven's music with coruscating and often uproarious effects. The album concludes with Thomas Adès' 'Air', subtitled 'Homage to Sibelius', performed with the London Symphony Orchestra conducted by Adès himself.Stream the album on Apple Music or Spotify.

Egil Johansen, the landlord of the Kenton pub in Hackney, east London, describes recent incidents involving children as "like the wild west." He has now banned children entirely after a three-year-old fell down a cellar hatch while parents sat elsewhere, a five-year-old crashed into staff carrying drinks, and six parents brought 10 hyperactive children after a birthday party while ignoring their behavior."In every case, the parents blame us when something goes wrong or get really angry when we ask them to control their children," says Johansen, who has run the pub for 17 years. "I'm legally obliged to keep children safe on my premises and if the parents let their children run riot, the only answer is to not allow them in at all."Johansen initially tried banning children only after 5pm, but this interim measure failed to address the underlying issues. Despite online criticism framing him as the "baddie," he expresses sadness about the situation: "I'm a publican; I'm a people-person. It gives me no joy to ban anyone, but it's just not safe: parents don't control their children and our other customers were beginning to go elsewhere. I had no choice."The Kenton's decision reflects a growing trend among UK pubs seeking to differentiate themselves from establishments that "resemble soft play centres without the ball pit." While some welcome this shift, others view it as unwelcoming to families, creating a culture war in the pub industry.Lee Jones, landlord of the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, Worcestershire, reversed a previous child ban: "We're dog-friendly, child-friendly, adult-friendly. We're just friendly – we don't distinguish. Pubs are for the community and I don't see bans in the spirit of what we're here for." Jones reports that when children become rowdy, staff can address the issue with parents, though this is rarely needed.Stephen Boyd, who runs the Alma in south London, took a different approach after attempting to attract young families. He found families with children consumed disproportionate time and resources with special requests for diluted drinks, heated beverages, and customized meals, while adult customers waited longer for their orders."You just need a couple screaming, banging on a table or running up and down, and it dictates the whole atmosphere of the pub," Boyd says. "Parents would take massive umbrage if staff asked them to stop their children doing something." After implementing a child ban, he describes the change as "a fucking revelation" with staff retention improving and takings doubling.Despite the positive results, Boyd faced significant backlash: "I got a lot of online hate. Mainly from people who had never been to the pub but felt I was doing something morally hateful."Tom Stainer, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale, acknowledges the debate is "very live" but emphasizes: "But you do have to look at the responsibility of the parents in these situations, not just at the pubs. They're the ones responsible for making sure that their children behave."Financial considerations also drive some decisions. Mandy Keefe, landlady of the Wheel Inn in Ashford, banned children partly for behavioral reasons but also financial ones: "If a third of my Sunday customers were children eating from a reduced-rate child's menu and not drinking any alcohol, that wouldn't be financially viable."Across the UK, pubs are making individual decisions based on their specific circumstances, but as Johansen's experience demonstrates, it only takes one serious incident to settle the question for good.

The conflict in Sudan continues to intensify, with two drone strikes resulting in the deaths of at least 28 civilians. The strikes occurred in separate locations, with one hitting a market in Saraf Omra, North Darfur state, killing 22 people, including an infant, and injuring 17 others. Another strike targeted a truck carrying civilians on a highway in North Kordofan, approximately 500 miles east of Darfur, killing six people and wounding 10. The RSF was blamed for the attack, although it is unclear which side launched the drone. Sudan's civil war, which began on April 15, 2023, has led to over 11.6 million people being displaced out of a population of about 51 million. The conflict has resulted in tens of thousands to potentially over 400,000 deaths. The situation has been described as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, with large areas of the country at risk of famine. The UN has reported a significant increase in civilian deaths from drone strikes this year, particularly in the Kordofan region. Between January 1 and March 15, over 500 people were killed by drones. A recent drone strike on a hospital in East Darfur killed 64 people and wounded 89, according to the World Health Organization.

A jury in the United States has ordered social media giant Meta to pay $375m for harming children's mental health and making them vulnerable to sexual exploitation.The verdict, handed down in New Mexico after a six-week trial, marks the first time a US state has successfully sued Meta over child safety issues. State authorities accused Meta, the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, of failing to protect minors.Jurors sided with state prosecutors who argued that Meta prioritized profits over safety and violated parts of New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act. The jury agreed with allegations that Meta made false or misleading statements and engaged in 'unconscionable' trade practices that unfairly took advantage of the vulnerabilities and inexperience of children.The case involved testimony from 40 witnesses, including employees-turned-whistle-blowers, and reviewed hundreds of documents, reports, and emails. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez called the verdict 'a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety.'Meta has stated that it will appeal the verdict, with a spokesperson saying, 'We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content.'A second phase in New Mexico's proceedings against Meta is scheduled to begin in May, when a judge will hear the state's claim that the company should be ordered to pay additional penalties and make specific changes to its platforms and company operations.

A landmark jury verdict has found Meta and YouTube liable for deliberately designing addictive products that harmed a young user, KGM. The jury ruled that the tech companies were both negligent and failed to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their products.The plaintiff, KGM, testified that she became addicted to YouTube at age six and Instagram at nine, which she claimed had deleterious effects on her wellbeing. By age 10, she said she had become depressed and was engaging in self-harm as a result. Her social media use allegedly caused her to have strained relationships with her family and in school.The jury awarded KGM $6m in damages, with Meta to pay 70% and YouTube the remainder. This lawsuit, over social media's alleged harm to young people, was the first of its kind to go to trial.KGM's lawyers argued that the companies' features, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay, were designed to keep people on the apps and made the products addictive. The plaintiffs' arguments mirrored those brought against big tobacco in the 1990s, focusing on the addictive qualities of social media and the companies' public denial despite knowledge of their products' harms.Meta and YouTube have consistently denied wrongdoing and plan to appeal the verdict. A YouTube spokesperson said the video service was a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site. Meta said KGM's mental health issues were brought on by a difficult home life and social media use was not to blame.This trial is the first in a consolidated group of cases brought in California against Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and Snap on behalf of more than 1,600 plaintiffs. The next bellwether case is scheduled to go to trial in July.

The UK government is set to trial social media curbs for teenagers in a major study aimed at understanding the impact of reduced social media use on young people's lives. Hundreds of UK teenagers will participate in the six-week pilot, which will test different restrictions on social media use, including bans, digital curfews, and time limits on popular apps like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat.The trial, led by the UK government, will involve 300 teens across all four nations of the UK, with some participants having their social apps disabled, while others will have access blocked overnight or capped to one hour's use. The goal is to gather evidence on how different restrictions affect young people's day-to-day lives.Technology Secretary Liz Kendall emphasized the importance of testing different options in the real world, stating that the pilots will provide the evidence needed to take the next steps, informed by the experiences of families themselves.The pilot is part of a broader effort to address concerns about the mental health risks associated with unfettered internet access. Nearly 30,000 parents and children have responded to the government's digital wellbeing consultation, which closes on May 26. An independent study, funded by the Wellcome Trust, will also examine the impact of reducing social media use among adolescents.The study, involving about 4,000 students between the ages of 12 and 15 from 10 Bradford secondary schools, will investigate changes in anxiety and sleep quality, time spent with friends and family, wellbeing, body image, social comparison, school absences, and bullying.The UK government faces pressure to follow Australia's move to ban access to social media sites for under-16s, with France, Spain, and Indonesia also considering similar bans. The European parliament has passed a resolution on age restrictions, although it is not legally binding.Critics argue that the pilot is a half-measure that puts pressure on parents rather than holding big tech accountable for the harm caused by social media. Bereaved parents have written to parliamentarians, urging them to support a ban and expressing concern about the consultation process.

A 60-year-old man has received a suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to sending offensive messages about England international Jess Carter during the European Championship last summer.Nigel Dewale, of Great Harwood in Lancashire, was sentenced to six weeks, suspended for 12 months, after a hearing at Blackburn magistrates court. He also received a four-year football banning order and a requirement to engage in a 10-day rehabilitation programme.Dewale had admitted to sending 'malicious communications' on TikTok and was identified as the author of two posts that used both racist and misogynist language.The deputy director of the UK Football Policing Unit, Mike Ankers, welcomed the verdict and praised the determination of Carter and the rest of the Lionesses to stand up to online abuse.Ankers said he believed there continued to be substantial underreporting of the online abuse directed at athletes and called for social media companies to be held accountable for sharing identifying information of account holders suspected of hate speech.