Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

When Elle Middlemas turned 18, she began wondering whether she owned a Child Trust Fund (CTF) – a government‑backed savings account created for children born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011. Her search hit a dead end; she could not confirm if she was entitled to any money and an email to HMRC yielded no response.Middlemas, a Whitby college student, explained that the loss of her mother at age 11 left her with little guidance. “My sister is 21 and spent three years looking for a fund and found nothing, so we assumed we didn’t have one,” she said, expressing the frustration felt by many of her peers.She and her sister are part of an estimated 758,000 people aged 18‑23 who have unclaimed CTFs. Collectively, these dormant accounts hold roughly £1.5 bn, a substantial sum that disproportionately belongs to low‑income families who are often unaware of its existence.Advocates are now pressing the government to automatically release CTFs when holders reach 21 years of age. Experts estimate that such a policy could inject up to £286 m directly into the pockets of young people who need it most.Middlemas finally learned of her entitlement after a conversation with a friend’s parent six months after her birthday. She discovered the Share Foundation, a charity that helps reconnect youths with their funds, and located a NatWest account bearing her name.“I had £700 sitting in my bank and thought, ‘What is going on?’ My sister also had one but never knew how to access it,” she recalled. The sisters plan to use the money to support university expenses and repay debts, underscoring the tangible impact of the scheme.The CTF programme was launched by the Labour government in 2005 to encourage parental savings. Every child received a £250 government contribution, with an additional £250 for those from low‑income families or in local authority care. Parents could add up to £9,000 per year, and any investment gains accrued until the child turned 18.If a parent failed to open an account within 12 months of birth, HMRC would create one on the child’s behalf. Today, the average value of a CTF stands at about £2,200.More than two‑thirds of the six million original recipients are now over 18 and eligible to claim their funds, with HMRC‑allocated accounts representing 28 % of all CTFs.Geographically, the North‑East of England has the highest concentration of HMRC‑allocated accounts, totalling £48 m. Across the UK, youths from the most disadvantaged 15 % of families hold accounts averaging £2,900 in value.Gavin Oldham, chief executive of the Share Foundation, warned that the scheme is hampered by poor communication, limited financial education, and “policy neglect”. He indicated the charity is considering a judicial review to compel the government to release the unclaimed assets.Oldham noted that the charity has already linked “well over 100,000 accounts to young adults”, yet the “sheer quantum of these unclaimed accounts remains a major problem”.“It is strange to find a government which expresses concern over youth poverty while doing so little to deliver on a groundbreaking scheme,” Oldham added.The charity’s proposal to release HMRC‑allocated funds automatically at 21 would free roughly £500 m, including £350 mOldham cautioned that a legal challenge, while potentially successful, could delay payouts for years, leaving vulnerable youths “denied their birthright for far too long”.Beyond immediate release, the Share Foundation is urging the creation of a new, targeted scheme for low‑income youths that embeds a financial‑awareness component, allowing participants to top up their funds through education‑linked incentives.Labour MP Laura Kyrke‑Smith echoed these concerns, describing the CTF system as “confusing and opaque” and calling for proactive tracing of account holders and clearer public information.HMRC responded that it is “directly sending every eligible young person information to help them find their child trust fund”, while also raising awareness via social media, broadcast interviews, and an online tracing tool. The agency added that banks, building societies, and investment firms managing the funds share responsibility for communicating with account holders.

Israel's newly approved $271 billion budget has sparked concerns over its implications for the occupied West Bank, with a significant portion allocated to settlement expansion and far-right ideological projects. The budget, the largest in Israel's history, was passed early on Monday from a fortified bunker, amid the ongoing conflict with Iran.The ruling coalition has bypassed legal frameworks to direct billions towards these goals, citing national security concerns. A key allocation is $129.5 million to the Ministry of Settlement and National Missions, which authorizes illegal Jewish-only settlements and outposts on Palestinian land.Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a settler himself, has been granted sweeping powers over the occupied territory and has openly opposed the two-state solution. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has echoed this sentiment, stating there will be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.The budget also includes funds for projects such as building bypass roads through Palestinian towns, providing protection for illegal settlement outposts, and incorporating armed settlers into the state's civilian security apparatus. These moves are seen as entrenching the occupation and empowering far-right elements of Netanyahu's government.The allocation comes against a backdrop of surging violence by settlers and Israeli armed forces' raids on Palestinian communities across the West Bank, which have intensified since the onset of Israel's war on Gaza in October 2023. UN data shows nearly 3,000 attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank over the past two years.The budget's passage has highlighted divisions within the Israeli opposition, with Yair Lapid accusing rival parties of being more focused on criticizing his party than uniting against the governing coalition. Analysts warn that the spending bill will have severe long-term consequences, including further destabilizing the region and undermining any future viable Palestinian state.

Vietnam’s gig‑economy is under pressure as fuel prices soar following the Iran‑related blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Nguyen, an e‑hailing driver in Ho Chi Minh City, reported that a 7‑hour shift earned him 240,000 VND (≈$9.11) while fuel alone cost 120,000 VND (≈$4.56), wiping out half his income.Diesel prices have more than doubled and petrol has risen by almost 30 %, straining riders who rely on motorcycles – the dominant transport mode in a city of over 7 million two‑wheelers.In response, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh announced a temporary suspension of the environmental tax on diesel, petrol and aviation fuel until 15 April, a move that will forfeit an estimated $273 million in revenue but aims to curb the price surge.Experts warn the shock highlights Vietnam’s vulnerability to external conflicts. Nguyen Khac Giang, a visiting fellow at the ISEAS‑Yusof Ishak Institute, said the tax cut is essential to “keep macro‑economic stability intact” amid “turbulence outside Vietnam”.Beyond gig workers, the ripple effect reaches public transport and airlines. Bus operators have raised fares by 3,000 VND (≈$0.11) yet still face losses, while Vietnam Airlines and Vietjet have trimmed flight schedules.Gig workers lack collective bargaining power. Do Hai Ha, a University of Melbourne research fellow, noted that platform drivers “have no chance to negotiate with the platforms” and are excluded from minimum‑wage or overtime protections, forcing many to work longer hours for diminishing returns.Small‑scale entrepreneurs are also feeling the pinch. A fisherman from Binh Thuan reported that his catch price fell from 800,000 VND (≈$30) to 650,000 VND (≈$24) as fuel costs climbed, while a bus fare collector on route 13 said the company cannot absorb the higher fuel bill despite modest fare hikes.Households are cutting back on essential goods. Uyen Pham of Saigon Children’s Charity observed that the price of bottled cooking gas has nearly doubled, prompting low‑income families to revert to wood‑fuel stoves and limit travel to see relatives.The crisis is prompting a strategic rethink on energy policy. Giang warned that Vietnam’s reliance on just two refineries – which currently meet only 40 % of national petrol demand – is unsustainable, urging accelerated investment in domestic refining capacity.Corporate responses are already shifting. Vingroup, the country’s largest conglomerate, announced it would pause a planned LNG‑fired power plant and redirect funds to renewable projects, citing “significant risk of high fuel prices” linked to the war.For workers like Duy, who runs a café near a petrol station, the tax suspension offers modest relief: projected price cuts of about 25 % for petrol and 5 % for diesel could ease daily expenses that had briefly doubled.

A24 marketed Kristoffer Borgli’s second English‑language film as a darkly comic romance, pairing Zendaya and Robert Pattinson as a seemingly picture‑perfect couple on the brink of marriage. The studio’s teaser, a faux wedding announcement in the Boston Globe, amplified the buzz that began with the trailer’s release and even earlier Reddit speculation. The narrative follows Charlie (Pattinson) and Emma (Zendaya) through a series of sun‑lit flashbacks that culminate in a tense pre‑wedding dinner. During a “worst‑thing‑you’ve‑done” game, Emma confesses that, as a depressed teenager in Louisiana, she once planned a mass shooting and even practiced with her father’s rifle, though she never pulled the trigger. This revelation serves as the film’s central twist and propels the story into a moral quandary about forgiveness and trust. Critics note that the film’s premise is deliberately provocative. Borgli, known for his satirical take on cancel culture in Dream Scenario, uses Emma’s confession to interrogate America’s obsession with gun violence. By placing the “thought crime” in the hands of a Black woman—contrasting with statistics that over 95% of mass shooters are male and more than half are white—the director forces a reversal of the usual gendered narrative surrounding firearms. The twist has provoked strong reactions from survivors and advocacy groups. Tom Mauser, who lost his son in the 1999 Columbine shooting, called the plot “awful” in a TMZ interview, while 2019 school‑shooting survivor Mia Tretta told USA Today that such a storyline “shouldn’t be joked about.” Parkland survivor Jackie Corin offered a more measured view, urging the film’s stars to use their platforms responsibly and questioning whether the project rises to the ethical standards their influence demands. Beyond the controversy, the film boasts technical strengths. Arseni Khachaturan’s cinematography creates a lush visual palette, and the editing maintains a brisk pace as the wedding day approaches. The climactic ceremony—described by many reviewers as the film’s “pièce de résistance”—forces Charlie and Emma to confront the fallout of Emma’s secret amid a chaotic, alcohol‑fueled toast that lays bare the fragility of their relationship. In the final scene, the couple reconvenes at a diner, echoing the opening “can we start over?” motif. The ambiguous resolution suggests that exposing one’s darkest thoughts may either deepen intimacy or foreshadow further turmoil. Overall, ‘The Drama’ is both a compelling watch and a flashpoint for debate about how cinema engages with the United States’ endemic gun‑culture. Whether the film succeeds as a thought‑experiment or merely courts outrage remains a divisive question that will likely fuel discussions well beyond its theatrical run.

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.

The organiser of the Wireless Festival has reaffirmed that Kanye West, legally known as Ye, will appear on the bill, even as senior UK officials and Jewish organisations demand his exclusion over a series of antisemitic statements and admiration for Adolf Hitler.West’s controversial remarks, including a 2025 song titled “Heil Hitler” and the promotion of a swastika‑bearing T‑shirt, have drawn condemnation from MPs and prompted calls for a government ban. Bridget Phillipson, a senior minister, described his comments as “completely unacceptable and absolutely disgusting,” while Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the booking “deeply concerning.”Melvin Benn, managing director of Festival Republic, the promoter behind Wireless, said the artist is “intended to come in and perform” and stressed that the festival will not provide a platform for “extolling any opinion,” only for the songs that are popular on radio and streaming services. He added, “I am a deeply committed anti‑fascist… I lived on a kibbutz attacked on 7 October and support both a Jewish and a Palestinian state.”In a personal appeal, Benn invoked his experience with a family member’s mental illness, urging the public to extend “forgiveness and hope” to West, whom he described as seeking “second chances” in a “divisive world.” He also asserted that West has a legal right to enter the UK, though ministers are reviewing his entry clearance.Jewish leaders remain unconvinced. Phil Rosenberg, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, warned that Benn’s comments “will not reassure many within the Jewish community” and highlighted that West has “proclaimed himself a Nazi” while the festival stands to profit from his appearance.Political opposition has also weighed in. Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey called for a ban on West’s entry, urging the government to act “tougher on antisemitism.”Commercial fallout has been swift. Pepsi and Diageo have withdrawn their sponsorship, and AB InBev announced it is pulling Budweiser and Beatbox support. PayPal confirmed it will no longer feature in the festival’s promotional materials.West has not performed in the UK since headlining Glastonbury in 2015, and his recent full‑page apology in the Wall Street Journal attributed his inflammatory remarks to bipolar‑1 disorder stemming from a 2002 car‑crash injury. Nonetheless, critics argue that a three‑day stage slot does not constitute a meaningful path to “health and healing.”

A Guardian investigation has shed light on the dark reality of child sex trafficking on Facebook and Instagram, prompting a landmark lawsuit against Meta. The tech giant has been fined $375m in a New Mexico court case, highlighting its failure to prevent criminal exploitation on its platforms.The investigation, led by reporter Katie McQue, began with a tip-off about surging child sexual abuse trafficking in the US. It uncovered evidence of traffickers using Facebook Messenger and private Instagram accounts to target, groom, and exploit children. Meta was found to be struggling to prevent these crimes, despite warnings from experts and law enforcement.The probe involved extensive research, including analysis of court documents and interviews with former Meta contract workers. These workers reported that their efforts to flag and escalate possible child trafficking often went unaddressed, and harmful content was rarely removed.The investigation's findings were published in April 2023, revealing how Facebook and Instagram had become marketplaces for child sex trafficking. The case was cited in a US supreme court amicus brief, and New Mexico's office of the attorney general filed a lawsuit against Meta for failing to protect children.The lawsuit went to trial, and Meta lost the court battle in March, being ordered to pay $375m in civil penalties. The company has said it will appeal the ruling, maintaining its stance on protecting teens online.This case marks a significant milestone in the ongoing scrutiny of social media platforms' role in combating child exploitation. Meta faces further trials, including one with a coalition of 33 attorneys general alleging the company designed features that 'purposefully addict children and teens.'

Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta has insisted that his team will not panic after suffering back-to-back losses for the first time this season. The Gunners, who were defeated by Manchester City in the Carabao Cup final and Southampton in the FA Cup, face Sporting in the Champions League quarter-final on Tuesday.Arteta emphasized the importance of understanding the reasons behind their recent setbacks and regaining their identity. He stated, 'Instead of panic, understand if that happens, why it happened, and bring clarity. And when you analyse that and you accept that, you'll be better.'David Raya, set to start against Sporting, echoed Arteta's sentiments, urging his teammates to use their recent disappointments as motivation. 'Now that it's gone, we just have to use that fuel, that pain that we had after the game to pick it up for the rest of the season,' he said.Arsenal will be without Bukayo Saka and Jurriën Timber due to injuries, but Gabriel Magalhães, Declan Rice, and Leandro Trossard are expected to feature.Sporting manager Rui Borges expressed confidence in his team's ability to pull off an upset, stating, 'They are a great team and great teams always want to win. They will be more focused and more willing to show their collective and individual capacity.'

President Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that Iran must reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face a combined "Power Plant Day" and "Bridge Day" has thrust senior U.S. officers into a stark ethical quandary: obey a presidential directive that could breach international law, or risk court‑martial for insubordination. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that failure to comply would result in an unprecedented strike on Iran’s civilian energy infrastructure, a move that legal scholars agree would amount to a war crime against 93 million civilians. Two former judge‑advocate general officers, Margaret Donovan and Rachel VanLandingham, emphasized that such rhetoric, if acted upon, would place service members on a “path of no return,” directly contradicting the extensive legal training that defines permissible orders. Historical precedent underscores the gravity of the situation. During the Vietnam War, officers who participated in the My Lai massacre were ultimately held accountable, with the court rejecting the “just following orders” defence as the orders were deemed “palpably illegal.” Professor Charli Carpenter of the University of Massachusetts Amherst notes that while many troops can identify manifestly unlawful commands in surveys, translating that awareness into real‑time refusal is far more challenging, especially when the military culture heavily emphasizes obedience to the chain of command. Since assuming office, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reshaped the Pentagon’s legal advisory structure, dismissing senior JAG officials and dismantling the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response unit created under the previous administration. Consequently, service members now rely on a “GI rights hotline,” whose usage has reportedly surged under the current leadership. Beyond conventional strikes, Trump’s escalating rhetoric has raised alarms about the potential use of nuclear force. Under U.S. protocol, the president alone can initiate a nuclear launch, with the “nuclear football” – a briefcase containing strike options and authentication codes – handed to a close aide. The only safeguard is for senior commanders to deem such an order illegal, a step that experts fear may never occur. Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, during the previous administration, reportedly instructed senior officers to stay involved in any nuclear decision due to concerns about Trump’s volatility. Nuclear weapons scholar Jeffrey Lewis now warns that confidence in any contemporary intervention is essentially nonexistent, citing Trump’s pattern of purging dissenting military personnel. As the deadline looms, the United States faces a precarious balance between upholding international humanitarian law and navigating a command structure that may be unwilling or unable to challenge the commander‑in‑chief’s most extreme directives.