Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The quest to find Australia's oldest playable musical instrument has led to the discovery of several remarkable pieces. A 16th-century double bass crafted by Gasparo da Salò, a renowned luthier, has been found to be one of the oldest playable instruments in the country. Currently on loan to Max Bibeau, principal double bass for the Australian Chamber Orchestra (ACO), this instrument was made around 1580 in Brescia, Italy. Only a handful of such instruments exist globally, and Bibeau's relationship with the double bass was not immediate. He notes that it took considerable time and effort to 'wake it up' and make it playable again. The instrument had been stored in an abbey in northern Italy for centuries before being discovered by German bass player Prof Günter Klaus in the late 1960s. Culturally, the yidaki (didgeridoo), a sacred instrument to the Yolŋgu people, is likely Australia's oldest instrument, with a history spanning thousands of years. For an exhibition in 2017, curators at the South Australian Museum worked with Yolŋgu community members to restore a selection of the oldest and most unique yidaki to playing condition. The oldest restored yidaki was made around 1890. Another contender for the oldest instrument is a piano from the First Fleet, a 'square' piano made by Frederick Beck in 1780. This instrument, now housed at the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, has a softer and smaller sound compared to modern pianos. The oldest instrument found in Australia is an ocarina from Colombia, estimated to have been made around AD 1200. This ancient vessel flute is part of a collection of 830 musical instruments donated to the Queensland Museum. While it can produce a sound, its original sound and playability are uncertain due to its fragility and age. The wood used for the front of Bibeau's da Salò bass has been dated to a tree growing as early as 1266. According to Bibeau, age can enhance an instrument's sound, but it requires careful preservation and play to maintain its quality. He notes that 'instruments need to be played' and that 'the more it vibrates, the better it vibrates.'

President Donald Trump opened the traditional Easter Egg Roll on the White House South Lawn alongside a child dressed in a giant bunny costume, before turning the event into a platform for a stark Iran warning to a room of reporters. Hours later, the president entered a packed briefing room flanked by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. The press conference highlighted the recent rescue of a U.S. airman whose jet was downed by Iran, a mission Trump praised as "genius" and likened to a Hollywood production. Amid the celebration, Trump shifted focus to a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget request he had submitted the previous week, emphasizing military spending while domestic programs face cuts. In a chilling turn, the president warned that the United States could "take out the entire country in one night" by targeting Iran’s bridges and power plants, a threat he framed as a potential path to freedom for the Iranian people. He claimed, without evidence, that Iranians would accept such suffering to topple their regime. When a reporter cited the Geneva Conventions, Trump dismissed the concern, questioning the journalist’s affiliation and mocking the New York Times for its declining circulation. Trump also hinted at personal profit, stating, "I'm a businessman first" when asked about seizing Iranian oil, and invoked a quasi‑religious narrative, saying, "God was watching us" during the Easter festivities. Defence Secretary Hegseth, known for his ties to Christian nationalism, likened the rescue to a resurrection, describing the timeline from the aircraft’s downing on Good Friday to its recovery on Easter Sunday as a "pilot reborn". Critics on social media and within Congress have labeled Trump’s rhetoric as "insane" and "dangerous," urging the cabinet to consider the 25th Amendment to assess his fitness for office. The president brushed off mental‑health concerns, suggesting that if his condition were an issue, "you’ll need more people like me." Recent weeks have seen Trump make contradictory statements: first denying the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, then threatening escalation; first boasting of air superiority after a U.S. fighter was shot down, then claiming the war is already won. These erratic pronouncements have heightened worries that the nation’s nuclear launch authority may be in the hands of a leader whose public behavior resembles the "Mad Hatter" of Lewis Carroll’s classic.

At Augusta National, Justin Rose’s name appears twice on the bronze winner’s list beside the victories of Sergio García (2017) and Rory McIlroy (2025) – both wins coming after playoffs that Rose lost. Only Ben Hogan shares the dubious distinction of losing two Masters playoffs, though Hogan later won the tournament twice outright.Rose’s record also includes a second‑place finish in 2015, four strokes behind Jordan Spieth. The only player with more runner‑up finishes without ever winning is Tom Weiskopf, who was second four times in seven years.Now 45 years old and entering his 21st Masters, Rose cannot predict if he will ever get as close again as he did last year, when McIlroy’s birdie putt on the 18th sealed a one‑stroke playoff defeat.“When you realise you’re that close, you can taste the victory,” Rose says. “I lived it as if I’d won, but without the real positive emotion – I sensed everything.” He acknowledges the mental rehearsal of the “what‑if” scenario while maintaining that he “did everything he could” and can live with the result.Rose explains his mental formula: “You can’t make a major win too important in the moment,” because a career inevitably includes “a little bit of heart‑ache and heartbreak.” He believes that to win, a player must also be prepared to be on the losing side.Despite the setbacks, Rose feels he has already demonstrated the necessary skill set. “I’ve pretty much done what it takes to win. I just haven’t walked over the line,” he asserts, emphasizing that he does not feel the need to change his approach.Recent form offers optimism. Earlier this year Rose set a new course record at Torrey Pines and became the first player in 71 years to win the Farmers Insurance Open wire‑to‑wire. He notes that eight players have captured the Masters after finishing second the previous year, suggesting his odds improve when the field is considered.Rose is also mindful of external narratives. “People are wishing me well and thinking it’s my year,” he admits, adding that he must manage expectations and craft his own story rather than buying into others’ predictions.

Article 52 of the first Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions bars attacks on civilian targets. The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Russian officers involved in strikes on Ukraine’s energy grid, a precedent that would apply to the United States if President Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran were carried out. Trump, alongside Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, has adopted a tone that resembles a “blood‑thirsty fever dream.” Hegseth framed the proposed Operation Epic Fury as a 21st‑century crusade, while Trump unleashed a profanity‑laden tirade demanding the immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, warning that “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day… Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” This rhetoric, emerging just before the United States’ 250th independence anniversary, undermines the credibility of the presidency and the nation’s moral standing. The editorial notes that, in a more restrained political climate, senators like Chris Murphy might explore constitutional avenues to remove Trump, but the current cabinet’s “craven complicity” makes such prospects remote. The international community now watches anxiously, fearing that a broader escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran could trigger “unknowable and spiralling consequences.” Iran has signaled it could widen its attacks across the region, and the recent closure of the Hormuz Strait demonstrates that Trump’s threats are not merely rhetorical. NATO allies have declined to endorse Trump’s approach, citing the absence of a coherent strategy and a lack of legal justification. They hope the president’s apocalyptic language masks a genuine search for a rapid de‑escalation, especially as global economic pressure mounts. Trump later claimed there was a “good chance” of a cease‑fire with Iran before his deadline, yet hours later Israel bombed a key petrochemical plant in Iran’s largest gas field, contradicting any notion of imminent peace. During a White House press briefing, Trump and Hegseth highlighted the rescue of a missing U.S. fighter crew shot down over Iran, a moment that starkly contrasted with the looming threat to thousands of lives and the stability of the global economy, now hanging on the whims of a president driven by self‑aggrandizement and an echo chamber of advisers.

The UK Prime Minister's recent comments on seeking closer relations with the EU are a step in the right direction, but a piecemeal approach to repairing the damage done by Brexit is unlikely to succeed.A more ambitious plan would be for Labour to announce a referendum on whether the UK should open negotiations on re-entry to the EU, promising a general election to secure a mandate to implement the proposal should the British public vote in favour. This would allow the government to seize the initiative and provide it with an issue around which to rally a broad base of electoral support.This approach would also expose the increasing reluctance of Reform UK and the Conservatives to defend Brexit and silence accusations of the betrayal of British voters.Ultimately, it would provide a practical route for restoring Britain to its rightful place within the EU, at a time when shifts in the global order make that task more urgent than ever.

Online betting platform Polymarket has come under fire for allowing users to wager on the fate of US pilots shot down in Iran. The platform has since halted the bets and promised to investigate how they were allowed to happen. The controversy began when US Representative Seth Moulton publicly denounced the practice, calling it 'DISGUSTING' that people were betting on the pilots' rescue while search efforts were still underway. Moulton, a veteran of the US Marine Corps, expressed his outrage on social media platform X. The incident involved an F-15E Strike Eagle jet shot down by Iranian military forces, with one pilot rescued within seven hours and the other rescued on Sunday, as announced by Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform. Polymarket initially allowed users to bet on the timing of the rescues, with most wagers predicting they would occur by Saturday. However, after Moulton's criticism, the platform quickly removed the market, stating it did not meet their integrity standards and vowed to investigate. Moulton did not stop there, calling on Polymarket to deactivate hundreds of other war-related wagers, accusing the company of having 'severely lacking' integrity standards. He also mentioned that Donald Trump Jr, the president's oldest son, is an investor in Polymarket, which Moulton referred to as a 'dystopian death market'. This incident is not the first time Polymarket has faced scrutiny. In March, some users generated international headlines by sending threatening messages to an Israeli journalist after betting on a missile strike near Jerusalem. The controversy surrounding prediction markets like Polymarket has drawn congressional attention, with lawmakers introducing proposals to ban betting on certain topics, including sports, government actions, and events 'ripe for rigging'. US Senator Chris Murphy stated that such markets risk 'corrupting the soul of America' by turning life-and-death events into financial products.

Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, used his highly‑watched annual letter to shareholders to press the White House to strengthen economic cooperation with U.S. allies, warning that a decline in shared prosperity could produce "truly adverse consequences" for democratic nations.His message arrives as the Iran‑Israel conflict enters its sixth week, a war that has already rattled global energy markets. Economists cited in the letter caution that prolonged fighting could push oil prices above $170 a barrel, a level capable of triggering a worldwide recession.Dimon’s appeal is widely read as a thinly‑veiled rebuke of President Donald Trump. Earlier this year, Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit against Dimon and JPMorgan, accusing the bank of “de‑banking” him. The timing of Dimon’s comments—just days after Trump’s aggressive rhetoric urging foreign governments to "go get your own oil"—underscores the growing rift between the bank’s leadership and the administration."Economic weakening of the world’s democracies or a fragmentation of their economic bonds could lead to truly adverse consequences," Dimon wrote. He warned that adversarial states aim to make allies less dependent on the United States, potentially turning them into economic “vassals” of hostile regimes.Beyond geopolitics, Dimon highlighted the broader macro‑economic outlook. He warned that the war could generate "sticky" inflation, higher commodity prices, and disrupted supply chains, which together may force interest rates higher than markets currently anticipate. He echoed other economists in warning that inflation could rise rather than fall in 2026.Despite these challenges, Dimon expressed optimism about the U.S. economy, affirming his belief that "the American Dream is alive." He also turned to emerging technology, noting that artificial intelligence could deliver breakthroughs in healthcare, manufacturing, and safety, ultimately shortening the work week and extending life expectancy.Dimon’s annual letter—spanning nearly 50 pages and more than 20,000 words—remains a barometer for Wall Street sentiment. In it, he also critiqued the administration’s tariff policy, arguing that while tariffs have forced renegotiations, a comprehensive foreign‑economic strategy should promote growth both for the United States and its partners.As transatlantic relations strain under soaring energy costs and divergent trade policies, Dimon’s call for a coordinated economic front underscores a pivotal moment: the United States must decide whether to lead a cohesive democratic coalition or risk ceding influence to autocratic powers.

The B Corp certification, a coveted ethical status for companies, has undergone its biggest overhaul in 19 years. B Lab, the organisation behind the certification, has raised the standards required to qualify, putting dozens of companies at risk of losing their status. Previously, companies could make up for poor performance in one area by scoring highly in another. However, the new system requires companies to meet 'non-negotiable' standards in every one out of seven categories, with attainment verified by a third-party audit. The overhaul has been partly motivated by changes to EU law that require companies boasting of any ethical standard, including B Corp status, to be rubber-stamped by an external organisation. Sources familiar with the process said that some of the 10,000 companies that have the status will need to improve ethical standards to recertify, which they must do every three years. Analysis by the Guardian of the publicly available B Corp database suggests hundreds are already at, or close to, the 80-point threshold required, even under the old, less onerous system. Of more than 2,000 UK B Corps, more than 60 score exactly 80 points, including the Kent-based digital marketing agency Sleeping Giant Media and VoucherCodes, a website that provides details of discount offers from leading brands. Larger companies will face more extensive requirements under the new standard, including declaring their tax policies and setting science-based emissions targets across all areas of the business. One source said the changes could even affect companies that now score highly, such as the private bank Coutts, which has a score of 107.6 and does not have to recertify until 2028. B Lab UK said: 'Our goal is not for every business to become a B Corp, but for every business to behave like one.'

Utah has enacted a law that effectively shields fossil fuel companies from legal accountability for climate damages. The legislation, signed by Republican Governor Spencer Cox, limits the ability of residents to sue these companies for their role in contributing to climate change. The new law is part of a broader effort by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to secure legal immunity in statehouses and Congress. This push is aimed at countering a wave of litigation filed by states, subnational governments, and individuals who claim that fossil fuel companies knew their products would cause climate damages but sold them anyway. Critics argue that the law prioritizes profits for the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts. The law requires challengers to provide 'clear and convincing evidence' that damage or injury has resulted directly from a violation, making it virtually impossible to successfully sue polluters for climate damages. The legislation was sponsored by Republican Representative Carl Albrecht, who has received funding from oil and gas interests. Albrecht's ties to the industry have raised concerns about the bill's motivations. The law closely mirrors a model policy called the Energy Freedom Act, circulated by the conservative group Consumers Defense, which has financial ties to a group linked to Leonard Leo, a key figure in the far-right takeover of the Supreme Court. The passage of Utah's law comes as climate lawsuits against big oil companies are inching closer to trial. Seventy cities, states, and individuals have sued energy majors for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate crisis. New York and Vermont have also passed climate 'superfund' laws requiring major polluters to pay for damages caused by their past planet-heating pollution. Lawmakers and advocates have amassed evidence that oil companies intentionally covered up the climate harms of their products. Climate science continues to warn that fossil fuels are the primary cause of dangerous global warming. Critics argue that the fossil fuel industry is pushing for immunity because it knows it cannot win on the merits of its case.