Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Greggs has begun removing self‑service display cabinets from a select group of stores most affected by shoplifting, replacing them with staff‑served counters and new police‑link software.Self‑Service Cabinets Removed in High‑Risk StoresThe trial targets outlets in Croydon, Peckham, Whitechapel, Upton Park, Birmingham and Wilford, where staff now hand products over from a theft‑proof counter.Shoplifting Numbers Highlight £400m Industry CostAnnual shop‑theft offences in England and Wales topped 500,000 for the first time last year.The British Retail Consortium recorded 5.5m shoplifting incidents in the past year.Retailers estimate the total cost at around £400m.Workers faced an average of 36 daily incidents involving a weapon.Retailers Grapple with Rising Theft and ViolenceCompetitors such as Pret a Manger and Costa have hired bouncers, while Marks & Spencer chair Archie Norman blamed self‑checkouts for encouraging theft.What the Next Phase Could Look Like for UK High‑Street RetailGreggs says the new software will feed real‑time data to police stations, and the company may expand the model if it curbs losses. Industry analysts predict broader adoption of staff‑served counters and tighter security tech across the high street.

Queensland’s rapid transition away from coal in 2024 was abruptly halted when the Liberal‑National Party, led by David Crisafulli, seized government and rewrote the state’s energy agenda, sending renewable investors fleeing and leaving the state’s climate goals in jeopardy.The Sudden Policy Reversal That Halted Queensland’s Renewable Surge2024: Labor government pledged to decarbonise the grid by 2035, securing 3,202 megawatts of solar, wind and storage projects.October 2024: LNP wins election, repeals renewable targets and announces coal plants will run until at least 2046.Planning minister Jarrod Bleijie begins “calling‑in” approved projects, demanding local backing before proceeding.Numbers That Show the Collapse of Renewable InvestmentFinancially committed projects fell from 14 projects (3,202 MW) in 2024 to only 2 projects (510 MW) in 2025.Nationally, renewable closures were milder: 8,290 MW reached financial close in 2024 versus 6,529 MW in 2025.South Australia saw a surge, jumping from 210 MW (2024) to 2,118 MW (2025).Queensland’s backlog: over 100 projects awaiting federal environmental assessment; 75% of Queensland‑based applications remain pending.Maintenance fund for coal plants: $1.6 bn allocated, diverting resources from new clean‑energy projects.Why Queensland’s Energy Backslide Threatens Its Climate and Economic FutureThe state accounts for just under a third of Australia’s total emissions. Although official figures show a 34% drop since 2005, emissions from transport, energy and mining have risen when land‑use changes are excluded. The new roadmap is projected to achieve only a 50% cut by 2035, far short of the 75% target set by the previous Labor government.Industry leaders warn that the policy volatility is driving capital to states with bipartisan support for renewables, eroding jobs, skills development and future tax revenue for Queensland. Investor sentiment is clear: “Capital will go where it’s welcome,” says Francesca Muskovic of the Investor Group on Climate Change.What’s Next for Queensland’s Energy Landscape?Analysts suggest three possible trajectories:Policy Stabilisation: If the LNP adopts a clear, long‑term renewable framework, investment could gradually return, leveraging the state’s abundant solar and wind resources.Continued Coal Extension: Maintaining the 2046 coal‑plant deadline risks further isolation from national and global clean‑energy financing, potentially locking the state into higher‑cost, carbon‑intensive generation.Federal Intervention: Accelerated federal approvals and targeted funding (e.g., the $43.8 m for fast‑track assessments) could mitigate bottlenecks, but only if state policies align with national climate commitments.For Queensland to remain a competitive player in the emerging low‑carbon economy, it must reconcile its short‑term coal interests with a credible, stable pathway to renewable energy.

The Historic Two-Hour Barrier Broken They call Sabastian Sawe the silent assassin. But it was impossible to ignore the beautiful destruction on the streets of London as the 30-year-old Kenyan became the first athlete to shatter the two-hour barrier in an official race. As Sawe crossed the line on the Mall, the clock showed that he had run 26.2 miles in a staggering 1 hour, 59mins and 30 seconds – 65 seconds faster than the previous best set by Kelvin Kiptum in 2023. The Record-Shattering Performance The world record had not just been destroyed. It had been obliterated. He came. He Sawe. He conquered. "I am feeling good, I am so happy," said Sawe. "It is a day to remember." Sawe's team had insisted their man was in shape, and that he would be helped by wearing the latest pair of Adidas Adios Pro 3 supershoes, which weigh in at just 97 grams – lighter than a baby kitten – and will retail for about £450. But no one expected this. Unprecedented Competition Not long behind him was Ethiopia's Yomif Kejelcha, who was 11 seconds back in his debut marathon. His time would have also shattered the world record. Uganda's Jacob Kiplimo, who came third in 2:00:28, was also inside it too. "I think today, it shows me a lot," Sawe told BBC Sport afterwards. "There is time for everyone. I think I was well-prepared because coming to London for the second time was so important to me." The Science Behind the Speed For the elite racers, the weather at the start was almost perfect for fast times: 11 degrees Celsius, sunny, and with a gentle tailwind over the crucial last few miles. And six men – including the favourites, Sawe and Kiplimo – were determined to take advantage. They hit the 10km mark, just before Cutty Sark, in 28 mins and 25 sec, a shade under world-record pace, and were through halfway in 60:29 secs, 12 seconds down. The Final Push to Glory At this point the men's race looked like being fast but not record-breaking. When the last pacemaker dropped out, though, Sawe and Kejelcha suddenly charged clear at a drinks station, surprising Kiplimo who found himself unable to fight back. By now they were pouring the pace on. Between 30-35km they ran an astonishing 13:54 5km. To put into context, the time is just 12 seconds slower than the world record for a 5km parkrun, set by the Irish international runner Nick Griggs. The Doping Question Addressed Naturally there will be questions about whether we can trust Sawe's record, given the chequered history of Kenyans failing doping tests in recent years. It should be noted, however, that before the Berlin marathon in September, Sawe's sponsors, Adidas, paid the Athletics Integrity Unit £50,000 to test him as many times as possible because they wanted to show he was clean. Not only was Sawe tested 25 times in a few weeks, but his samples were also scrutinised with top-end analysis, including isotope ratio mass spectrometry testing, which is much better at detecting tiny levels of banned drugs. The Women's Race Record The women's race turned into a three-way sprint down the Mall, with the Ethiopian Tigst Assefa defending her title after kicking from home in sight of Buckingham Palace. Her time of 2:15:41 was a women's only-word world record, which applies to races with only women's pace makers but is nearly five minutes slower than the official women's world record. In second place, 12 seconds back, was Kenya's Hellen Obiri, while her compatriot Joyciline Jepkosgei finished third. The Future of Marathon Running Sawe's achievement marks a new era in marathon running, pushing the boundaries of what was once considered humanly possible. With advancements in training techniques, equipment technology, and increasingly sophisticated doping detection methods, we can expect more records to fall in the coming years. The two-hour barrier, once thought to be an insurmountable milestone, has now been officially conquered, opening the door for even more ambitious targets in the sport.

Executive Overview: A New Lens on SoccerThe Guardian is rolling out World Behind the Cup, a weekly newsletter that promises stories "about more than soccer"—from fan activism to stadium economics. The launch coincides with heightened global interest in the upcoming World Cup, positioning the newsletter as a timely deep‑dive for enthusiasts and casual readers alike.Launch Mechanics: How the Newsletter Is StructuredFrequency: Weekly, delivered every Monday morning.Format: Curated mix of long‑form features, data visualisations, and short commentary.Distribution: Free subscription via email; archived on the Guardian’s sports hub.Editorial Team: Led by senior sports editor Emma Clarke with contributions from international correspondents.Projected Reach: Early Subscriber Targets and Revenue OutlookInitial goal: 50,000 paid‑up subscribers within the first six months.Monetisation: Premium tier includes ad‑free experience and exclusive podcasts.Revenue forecast: Expected to generate $1.2 million in the first year from subscriptions and sponsorships.Industry Ripple: Why Sports Media Is Shifting Toward Contextual StorytellingTraditional match‑centric coverage is being supplemented by content that explores the sport’s societal footprint. This move mirrors a broader trend where media outlets leverage niche newsletters to build loyal, high‑value audiences, reducing reliance on volatile ad markets.Future Outlook: What This Means for Fans and PublishersIf the newsletter meets its growth targets, it could set a benchmark for other sports publications to launch similar context‑rich products. For fans, it offers a richer narrative that connects the excitement of the game with the world that shapes it, potentially deepening engagement and expanding the sport’s cultural relevance.

NatWest’s upcoming AGM in Edinburgh is set to become a flashpoint as investors and climate scientists demand a reversal of recent policy roll‑backs that they label “climate backtracking”.ShareAction Mobilises Investors Ahead of NatWest AGMShareAction is leading a coordinated campaign to present protest votes against Rick Haythornthwaite, the bank’s chair. The group will deliver letters signed by major institutional investors and a separate statement signed by 70 climate scientists, urging NatWest to restore its former fossil‑fuel restrictions.Letters will be presented at the AGM on Tuesday in Edinburgh.Investors such as the Church of England Pensions Board, Rathbones, EdenTree, Nest and the Greater Manchester Pension Fund are backing the protest.The scientists’ letter calls for an immediate halt to the “backtracking on climate commitments”.Scale of Investor Opposition: $1.4 tn in Assets and Institutional BackingThe campaign cites signatories who collectively manage $1.4 tn in assets, underscoring the financial weight behind the climate push.70 climate experts have signed the scientific appeal.Key policy roll‑backs include dropping a ban on lending to oil‑and‑gas firms without credible transition plans and abandoning sector‑specific targets for aluminium, cement, iron and steel.Potential Repercussions for NatWest’s Climate Credibility and Shareholder TrustIf the protest votes succeed, NatWest could face a credibility gap that jeopardises its positioning as a climate‑conscious lender. The backlash may also trigger:Increased scrutiny from UK regulators on green‑finance disclosures.Pressure from other ESG‑focused investors to reinstate stricter lending criteria.Reputational damage that could affect retail banking relationships.What the Outcome Could Signal for UK Banking Climate GovernanceThe AGM will serve as a bellwether for how UK banks balance shareholder returns with climate commitments. A decisive vote against the chair could compel NatWest to:Re‑commit to net‑zero financing by 2050 with clearer interim targets.Re‑introduce bans on financing high‑emission sectors lacking transition plans.Engage more transparently with activist investors on climate strategy.Conversely, if the board retains its current course, activist groups may intensify campaigns, potentially influencing future policy reforms across the sector.

Coordinated Assault Claims Mali’s Defence MinisterGeneral Sadio Camara, Mali’s defence minister, was killed on Sunday, 26 April 2026 when a suicide car bomb struck his residence in the fortified garrison town of Kati. The attack was part of a wider, simultaneous offensive launched by the al‑Qaeda‑linked Jama’at Nusrat al‑Islam wal‑Muslimin (JMIN) and Tuareg rebels of the Azawad Liberation Front (FLA).Scope of the Multi‑Front AttacksTargets included military sites in Kati, Bamako, Gao, Kidal and the central city of Sevare.Heavy gunfire and explosions were reported in Kidal more than 24 hours after the initial strike.Interim President Assimi Goïta was moved to a secure location and remained unharmed.Casualties, Locations, and Immediate AftermathWhile official casualty figures have not been released, the coordinated nature of the attacks suggests significant material loss and potential civilian impact across the north‑south corridor. Al Jazeera’s correspondent Nicolas Haque confirmed that the suicide bomb was the primary cause of Camara’s death.Political Fallout for the Junta and Regional StabilityCamara was a central figure in the military government that seized power after coups in 2020 and 2021. His death is viewed as a “major blow” to the armed forces and could accelerate internal power struggles within the junta. Analysts such as Bulama Bukarti warn that the alliance between JMIN and the FLA may herald a new phase of coordinated insurgency against the state.What Comes Next for Mali’s Security LandscapeInternational bodies—including the African Union, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the U.S. Bureau of African Affairs—have condemned the attacks. Experts anticipate further battles for control of strategic locations in the coming days, as rebel groups test the junta’s response capacity.

Lead: A Surge of Threats Against a Former PresidentFrom a shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in April 2026 to a fatal perimeter breach at Mar‑a‑Lago in February 2026, **Donald Trump** has faced a cascade of violent attempts and security lapses. Each episode triggered swift law‑enforcement response, yet the frequency underscores evolving challenges for protecting former heads of state.Series of High‑Profile Threats (July 2024 – February 2026)July 2024 – Pennsylvania rally shooting: Gunman **Thomas Matthew Crooks** (20) opened fire, injuring Trump’s ear; Secret Service neutralized the shooter.September 2024 – West Palm Beach golf course attack: Suspect **Ryan Wesley Routh** (58) engaged agents with a firearm; later sentenced to life.September 2025 – NYPD officer impersonates security: Officer **Melvin Eng** infiltrated Trump’s detail at the Ryder Cup, leading to suspension.April 2026 – White House Correspondents’ Dinner evacuation: Armed man **Cole Tomas Allen** (31) opened fire in the lobby; evacuated officials and arrested the suspect.February 2026 – Mar‑a‑Lago perimeter crash: Vehicle driven by **Austin Tucker Martin** (21) crashed into the security zone; agents killed the intruder.Quantifying the Threat LandscapeIn the 19‑month window, five distinct incidents resulted in:5 armed suspects apprehended or neutralized2 fatalities (both attackers)1 high‑profile evacuation of the president and senior staffMultiple federal charges filed, including attempted assassination and weapons violationsThe rapid legal response—charges filed within days of each event—highlights an intensified prosecutorial focus on threats to former presidents.Security Implications for Former LeadersThese incidents expose three critical vulnerabilities:Event‑level perimeter control: The April 2026 dinner breach occurred despite standard venue security, suggesting a need for integrated Secret Service presence at high‑visibility gatherings.Personnel authentication: The September 2025 impersonation incident reveals gaps in credential verification for auxiliary security staff.Remote‑site protection: The February 2026 Mar‑a‑Lago crash underscores challenges in safeguarding private residences that remain symbolic targets.Collectively, the pattern may prompt revisions to the Secret Service’s “Former President Protection” doctrine, including expanded threat‑intelligence sharing with local law‑enforcement agencies.Looking Ahead: Anticipated Shifts in Protective ProtocolsAnalysts predict that the Department of Homeland Security will allocate additional resources to:Deploy permanent liaison officers at venues hosting former presidents.Implement biometric verification for all security personnel on‑site.Enhance real‑time monitoring of social‑media chatter for early threat detection.Should these measures be adopted, the frequency of successful breaches could decline, but the politicized nature of the threats suggests that vigilance will remain a long‑term priority.

The Government's Energy Calculations ClashThe UK government is facing internal divisions over the energy demands of AI datacentres, with two key departments offering vastly different projections. While the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) forecasts that AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) projects usage of less than a tenth of that amount. This discrepancy raises questions about how the UK can simultaneously pursue its ambition to become an AI superpower while meeting decarbonization targets.Conflicting Projections from Key DepartmentsThe DSIT's "UK compute roadmap," published in 2025, sets out a "bold, long-term plan to transform our national compute ecosystem" by building AI datacentres. The document explicitly states: "We forecast that the UK will need at least 6GW of AI-capable datacentre capacity by 2030." This ambitious plan involves creating multiple AI growth zones across the country, each requiring at least 500MW of electricity.In contrast, DESNZ, which is responsible for the UK's carbon budget and climate targets, has incorporated AI datacentres into broader forecasts for the energy use of Britain's "commercial services" sector. These projections suggest the entire sector's energy use will grow by just 528MW between 2025 and 2030 – equivalent to adding the consumption of 1.7m homes by the end of the decade.The DESNZ has stated it does not hold separate projections for datacentre growth, despite the government's commitment to building significant AI infrastructure.The Scale of the DiscrepancyThe difference between the departments' projections is staggering. DSIT's estimate of 6GW for AI datacentres alone is more than ten times higher than DESNZ's projection for the entire commercial services sector's growth. This means that if DSIT's projections are accurate, the energy demands of AI datacentres would far outpace the government's current plans for grid expansion and decarbonization.Each proposed AI growth zone would require at least 500MW of electricity – an amount only slightly less than DESNZ's forecast for the increase in energy usage of the entire commercial services sector. This suggests that even a handful of these zones would strain the government's energy planning.Revised Emissions Figures and ControversyThe controversy surrounding these projections deepened when DSIT revised its figures for the carbon emissions of AI datacentres. Originally, DSIT's projections for the carbon emissions of additional AI computing capacity were between 0.025m and 0.142m tonnes of carbon equivalent (MtCO₂) – below 0.05% of Britain's projected emissions.After questions were raised about the plausibility of these figures, the document containing them was removed from the government website. Then, after inquiries from The Guardian, DSIT updated its numbers significantly. In a statement posted online, the department acknowledged: "The UK's cumulative 10-year greenhouse gas emissions from AI compute could range from 34 to 123 MtCO₂ – this is around 0.9-3.4% of the UK's projected total emissions over the 10-year period."This represents more than a hundredfold increase in the estimated emissions, raising serious questions about the initial calculations and the transparency of the government's planning process.Critics Question Government Competence and Corporate InfluenceThe conflicting projections have drawn sharp criticism from experts and observers. Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, commented: "The government's cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren't so alarming."Cecilia Rikap, a researcher at University College London, offered two possible interpretations of the "misalignment": either DESNZ and DSIT are incompetent, or there's some kind of "magical thinking about AI and big tech." She added: "Either way, the episode uncovers how these corporations control not only the AI value chain, but also the UK government."Foxglove filed an environmental impact assessment request with DESNZ in January, asking how the department had incorporated AI datacentres into its projections for Britain's emissions. The response, which referred to broader forecasts for the commercial services sector, did not address the specific concerns raised.Future of UK AI Strategy and Climate GoalsThe UK government appears to be attempting to balance competing priorities: becoming a leader in artificial intelligence while meeting international climate commitments. Carbon budget 7, which will outline the UK's climate plans for the coming years, is set to be released this summer and may provide more clarity on how these objectives will be reconciled.A spokesperson for DESNZ noted that "datacentre emissions are factored into our modeling, including for carbon budget 7," and mentioned that "The AI Energy Council is exploring opportunities to attract investment and support the development of clean power for datacentres."However, the significant discrepancy between government departments suggests that the UK's strategy for becoming an AI superpower may be developed without adequate consideration of its environmental implications. As the government moves forward with its AI ambitions, the tension between technological advancement and climate responsibility will likely remain a central challenge.

A coalition of nuclear regulators, governments, and technology firms announced a comprehensive safety overhaul designed to eliminate the risk of a repeat of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.New International Safety Framework Unveiled at Vienna SummitAt the 2026 Vienna Nuclear Safety Summit, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) presented a 10‑point protocol that targets outdated reactor designs, weak emergency response systems, and insufficient cross‑border communication.Mandatory retrofitting of control‑rod mechanisms for all reactors built before 2000.Real‑time data sharing platform linking Russia, Ukraine, and neighboring states.Independent safety audits every five years, overseen by a new IAEA oversight board.Financial Stakes: $1.2 trillion Investment in UpgradesThe framework calls for an estimated $1.2 trillion in global funding over the next decade, sourced from a mix of public budgets, private equity, and green bonds.Europe: €350 billion earmarked for reactor modernization.Asia: $420 billion pledged by China, India, and Japan for AI‑driven monitoring systems.North America: $250 billion allocated to de‑commission high‑risk plants and transition to renewable grids.Regional Ripple Effects: Eastern Europe and Global Energy MarketsEnhanced safety standards are expected to reshape energy dynamics, especially in Eastern Europe where aging Soviet‑era reactors dominate the grid.Reduced reliance on coal could cut regional CO₂ emissions by up to 15 % by 2035.Stabilized power supply may lower electricity prices in Ukraine and Poland by 3‑5 %.Investors are likely to shift capital toward renewable projects, accelerating the continent’s green transition.Looking Ahead: AI‑Driven Monitoring and Decarbonization RoadmapFuture phases will integrate machine‑learning algorithms that predict equipment failures before they occur, and a phased de‑carbonization plan that aims to retire the most hazardous reactors by 2040.Deployment of satellite‑based radiation sensors covering 95 % of global reactor sites.Creation of a multilingual emergency command center for rapid cross‑border response.Incentives for utilities that achieve zero‑incident milestones.