Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The world of Major League Baseball has witnessed a significant transformation in pitching, with velocity and accuracy reaching unprecedented levels. This arms race is largely attributed to advances in pitching analytics, often developed by individuals without a traditional baseball background.Rob Friedman, known as PitchingNinja online, has authored a new book titled 'Unhittable: How Technology, Mavericks and Innovators Engineered Baseball's New Era of Pitching Dominance.' The book explores how technology and data analysis have revolutionized the art of pitching.In the past, pitchers like Bob Feller were renowned for their speed, but today's pitchers routinely exceed triple digits on the radar gun. Friedman notes that technology brings out the best in everybody, allowing pitchers to refine their skills and achieve remarkable results.The use of heat maps, slow-motion cameras, and AI has become commonplace in analyzing pitching performance. These tools help quantify not just velocity but also accuracy, enabling pitchers to deliver the ball to the plate with precision.Paul Skenes of the Pittsburgh Pirates, last year's National League Cy Young winner, and Nolan McLean of the New York Mets are examples of pitchers benefiting from analytics. Friedman praises McLean's exceptional skills, describing his stuff as 'absolutely nasty.'The debate surrounding pitcher-friendly conditions continues, with some arguing that the game has become too favorable to pitchers. Friedman counters that pitchers are on offense, and their performance is a reaction to the hitter's actions.Injuries to pitchers are on the rise, and while there is no consensus on the cause, Friedman suggests that excessive velocity may contribute to the problem. He cites Trevor Bauer as an example of a pitcher who successfully adopted analytics and training methods to enhance his performance.The intersection of analytics and tradition remains a contentious issue, with some players and coaches skeptical of data-driven approaches. Friedman advocates for a bridge between both sides, emphasizing that analytics provide valuable information to inform pitching decisions.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a comprehensive report titled None Can Run Away, concluding that Burkina Faso’s military, its allied Volunteers for the Defence of the Homeland (VDPs), and the al‑Qaeda‑linked Jama’at Nusrat al‑Islam wa al‑Muslimin (JNIM) have perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity since the coup that brought the junta to power in September 2022. Through in‑person and telephone interviews with more than 450 witnesses across Burkina Faso, Benin, Ivory Coast, Ghana and Mali, HRW verified 57 distinct incidents involving wilful killing, attacks on civilians and civilian objects, pillage, looting, and forced displacement. The report estimates that 1,837 civilians were killed between January 2023 and August 2025, with over 1,200 deaths directly linked to government forces. The United Nations estimates that the conflict has displaced approximately two million people, underscoring a humanitarian crisis of regional magnitude. Among the deadliest attacks, the military and VDP militias slaughtered more than 400 civilians across 16 villages near the northern town of Djibo in December 2023. In November 2023, allied militias killed 13 Fulani civilians—including six women and four children—in the western village of Basse, employing methods described by survivors as “blindfolded, hands tied, and riddled with bullets.” JNIM’s own atrocities were highlighted by the August 24, 2024 massacre in Barsalogho, where at least 133 civilians, many of them children, were shot indiscriminately. HRW’s findings point to a systematic targeting of the Fulani ethnic group, whom the junta accuses of supporting armed insurgents, resulting in what the report characterises as an ethnic cleansing of entire communities. HRW calls for urgent investigations into President Ibrahim Traoré, the supreme commander of the armed forces, and six senior military commanders for “grave abuses.” The organization also urges scrutiny of Iyad Ag Ghaly, JNIM’s supreme leader wanted by the International Criminal Court, and four of his commanders under the principle of command responsibility. “The scale of atrocities taking place in Burkina Faso is mind‑boggling, as is the lack of global attention to this crisis,” said Philippe Bolopion, executive director of HRW. “The junta is committing horrific abuses itself, failing to hold those responsible on all sides to account, and curtailing reporting to obscure the suffering of civilians caught in the violence.” Survivors recount harrowing details: a 41‑year‑old father described his son’s body “shot in the back of the neck,” while a 39‑year‑old witness to the Barsalogho attack said, “People were falling like flies. They came to exterminate us. They did not spare anyone.” These revelations amplify calls from the international community for accountability and for renewed humanitarian assistance to the millions displaced by the protracted Sahel conflict.

In a bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health, thousands of New Yorkers are making the switch from gas stoves to induction stoves. A recent project in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan has installed induction stoves in 15 co-op apartments, providing residents with a cleaner and healthier way to cook.The project, supported by state and city governments, as well as non-profit groups, aims to reduce the risks associated with gas stoves, including nitrogen dioxide emissions and climate change. According to a study, people who replaced their gas stoves with electric alternatives were exposed to less than half the amount of nitrogen dioxide emissions.Residents, such as Marcos Ramos, are excited about the change. “It makes sense”, he said. “If you’re minimizing risk with the gas, the fire, then environmentally, health-wise, it makes sense. It’s logical.”The induction stoves, supplied by Copper, use magnetic fields to heat cookware directly, making them more efficient and environmentally friendly. The project is part of a larger effort to promote clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New York City.Advocates claim that induction stoves are a viable alternative to gas, which has jumped in price amid the Iran war and poses health risks to residents. The city is also working on a $32m pilot to replace gas stoves in 10,000 apartments across the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) system.While some states, including New York, California, and Hawaii, are stepping up to promote induction stoves through rebate programs, others are facing resistance from the gas industry and Republican politicians.

New research by Cleanview and a subsequent confirmation from Google reveal that the tech giant is collaborating with Crusade Energy to develop a 933‑megawatt natural‑gas power plant in the sparsely populated Armstrong County of the Texas panhandle. The facility will serve the Goodnight AI‑focused datacenter campus, signaling a notable departure from Google’s long‑standing clean‑energy narrative.The plant, slated for off‑grid operation, is intended to power at least two buildings on the Goodnight site. Satellite imagery commissioned by Cleanview shows construction already under way, following a permit application filed in January.According to the 465‑page permit filing, the plant could emit as much as 4.5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year—roughly the same amount released annually by the entire city of San Francisco. This emission level underscores the environmental stakes of the project.Cleanview founder Michael Thomas described the venture as “one of the first direct investments in fossil‑fuel infrastructure” he has seen from Google, suggesting a strategic pivot away from the company’s historic climate leadership.When queried, Google spokesperson Chrissy Moy did not deny the partnership but clarified that “we don’t have a contract in place for the plant in Texas.” She noted that negotiations are ongoing and pointed to a separate wind‑farm partnership with Serena Energy in the region. Crusoe Energy declined to comment.The Texas project is Google’s third known involvement with gas‑fuel facilities in recent months. Earlier in October, the company announced an agreement to purchase power from a gas plant in Illinois, and documents obtained in May revealed exploratory talks on a large‑scale gas project in Nebraska.Despite the shift, Google maintains that natural gas does not conflict with its climate objectives. The firm argues it is moving from a strategy of buying carbon credits to one of “building the grid” to secure carbon‑free energy for its operations.At a recent energy conference in Houston, Google’s head of advanced energy, Michael Terrell, declined to elaborate on how natural gas aligns with the company’s sustainability roadmap.From carbon‑free promises to “climate moonshots”Google has long positioned itself as a climate leader, setting a 2020 goal to achieve net‑zero carbon emissions across all operations by 2030 and investing heavily in wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear projects. However, the rapid expansion of AI workloads has strained those commitments.The 2023 sustainability report noted that Google was no longer “maintaining operational carbon neutrality,” and a 2024 update reported a 48 % rise in greenhouse‑gas emissions since 2019, driven largely by datacenter energy demand.By 2025, the company reframed its emissions targets as “climate moonshots,” acknowledging the growing complexity of meeting its 2030 ambitions amid AI‑driven uncertainties.Google is not alone in this trend. Competitors such as Meta, Amazon and Microsoft have also turned to natural‑gas‑powered facilities to meet the soaring energy needs of their AI infrastructures, highlighting a broader industry tension between rapid AI deployment and climate pledges.Thomas of Cleanview summed up the situation: “The race to build AI is creating a new tension with climate goals that these hyperscalers have long championed.”

Out of roughly 43 million Americans who collectively owe close to $1.7 trillion in student loans, only a limited number have seen their balances wiped clean. For those fortunate few, the impact has been profound, reshaping financial stability and opening new career possibilities.Laura Kluss, a 41‑year‑old clinical social worker from Sacramento, California, received forgiveness through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program at the end of 2025. Her loan, which had ballooned into the six‑figure range, was reduced to zero, allowing her to consider a shift from government work to the private sector without the weight of debt.Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Education began alerting approximately 164,000 additional federal borrowers that they may qualify for automatic loan discharge. The outreach focuses on individuals who attended any of more than 150 colleges alleged to have misled students about graduation rates, employment outcomes, or true program costs.For borrowers like Kimberly from Pennsylvania, the news feels like “hitting the lottery.” She explained that the forgiveness will enable her to settle other obligations, such as her mortgage and vehicle loan, and she warned that “college is a scam unless you become a doctor or a lawyer,” urging prospective students to consider trade schools instead.Ian Hobbs, a 43‑year‑old adjunct professor in Arizona, also saw his loans discharged, yet he stresses lingering repercussions. He noted that a high debt‑to‑income ratio has blocked mortgage approvals and job opportunities for over a decade, describing the experience as akin to “indentured slavery.”Jennifer Alfonso, a disabled stay‑at‑home wife from Florida, is awaiting a decision on a Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge. She said that relief would prevent automatic deductions from her SSDI benefits, which currently leave her barely able to cover basic living costs.Alfonso also cautioned others to verify a school’s accreditation, recounting her own ordeal with an unaccredited institution that forced her to restart her nursing education after transferring credits.Brad Hufeld, a retiree in Delaware, Ohio, has carried a loan for 23 years after his college closed before he could graduate. He highlighted the personal toll, including the loss of his mother during that period, and urged borrowers to read the fine print before signing up for any program.A woman in her 60s working at a bottling plant in Kentucky, who filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy two years ago, expressed hope that forgiveness could finally allow her to retire and keep her bills current.Finally, a 65‑year‑old semi‑retired truck driver in Texas, whose loan finances a truck‑driving certification rather than a degree, said that discharge would improve his credit score and provide much‑needed financial relief, adding a reminder to “do your homework before committing to any educational path.”p>

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.

The UK government's proposal to boost North Sea oil and gas drilling is unlikely to provide relief to consumers in the form of lower energy prices. Oil prices have surged to $100 a barrel following the US and Israel's attack on Iran, with potential increases to $150 a barrel due to supply issues in the Strait of Hormuz.Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative party, has introduced a plan to 'get Britain drilling' by opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. However, experts argue that this will not reduce energy bills for UK consumers. Oil and gas are sold on international markets, and prices are set globally, so there is no direct discount for UK consumers.The Conservative party has previously acknowledged this, but now suggests that tax reforms and removal of VAT on bills could deliver £200 cuts to household energy bills. The plan involves scrapping the windfall tax on North Sea producers, which has raised about £12bn so far.Critics argue that the windfall tax is essential and that removing it would not stimulate production significantly. The tax does not increase prices to consumers and has the support of the International Energy Agency.Analysis suggests that redirecting tax revenues from the North Sea back to consumers would have a minimal impact on bills. A study found that households would gain only about £16 a year if tax revenues from a maximally exploited North Sea were redistributed.Badenoch's claims about job creation in the North Sea are also disputed. The sector is declining, and geology, not politics, will dictate the future of North Sea oil and gas. Most of the UK's sector has already been drained, with only about 218m tonnes of oil recoverable by 2050 from existing fields.New drilling could add only 74m tonnes of oil and 1.1% to gas production, equivalent to putting off the end of the North Sea by a year or two. Job losses in the sector are a concern, with at least 70,000 jobs lost in the decade to 2024.Experts stress that renewable energy sources are a more secure and sustainable alternative. The UK should focus on creating conditions for clean energy infrastructure to attract investment and drive growth.

The UK Prime Minister's recent announcement of a 'five-point plan' to address the energy crisis has been met with skepticism. During his remarks from Downing Street, Prime Minister Starmer outlined measures that were largely pre-existing or unrelated to the immediate crisis. The plan included: cutting energy bills by over £100 per household, which was announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last November's budget and has since been adjusted to £117 for an average dual-fuel household; extending the cut in fuel duty until September; supporting people exposed to heating oil rises with £53m; investing in clean British energy through the Clean Power 2030 plan; and pushing for de-escalation in the Middle East. Critics argue that most of these points were not new and did not adequately address the current crisis. The plan did not provide specifics on who else could get help with energy bills or how targeted support would be delivered. The Clean Power 2030 plan, a five-year £200bn infrastructure project, will not yield immediate results for consumers, with savings expected to arrive around 2040. The article concludes that repeating measures from last November's budget is not a plan and that a proper five-point plan would be needed if an energy price shock turns into a supply shock, possibly meaning rationing.

Energy crises do more than lift household bills; they can reshape an entire economy. In the 1970s the United Kingdom responded to oil shortages by expanding North Sea extraction and becoming a net energy exporter. Today, with a 10 million‑barrel‑per‑day supply deficit and a fifth of global LNG trade under strain, that strategy no longer offers security.The UK is now acutely vulnerable to volatile gas prices. Inflation expectations are rising, markets anticipate higher interest rates, and borrowing costs have surged to levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. The ripple effect is already evident in food markets, where inflation hit 3.3 % in February and could climb sharply within three months.New data reveal that the hundreds of North Sea licences granted since 2010 have added merely 36 days of extra gas production. Major oil majors such as BP are re‑emphasising oil and gas to reassure investors, while Shell continues aggressive share‑buy‑backs. The reality is clear: fossil‑fuel giants cannot be the rescue plan.Gas should no longer set the price floor for electricity. As the grid leans more on wind and solar, gas must be treated as a backup resource, compensated with a fixed or regulated price rather than wholesale market volatility. Research from University College London and Common Wealth outlines a practical model for this approach.Beyond market reforms, households need a safety net. An essential energy guarantee—a capped, affordable band of consumption for every home—mirrors schemes adopted in Austria, the Netherlands and Poland after the 2022 crisis and would be more targeted than the current blanket price‑support guarantee.Similarly, a protected basket of staple foods, backed by long‑term procurement and direct support for domestic producers, could stabilise prices. France’s 2023 anti‑inflation shopping‑basket experiment offers a template, and the UK already supplies over 60 % of its own food, though it remains dependent on imports for fruits, vegetables, rice and fertilisers.The long‑term solution lies in renewable power. Record wind generation this year has already reduced gas‑fired output, while consumer interest in solar panels, batteries and heat pumps is soaring. A typical solar‑plus‑battery system can slash a household’s electricity bill to under £2 per month, and electric‑vehicle owners can save more than £1,000 annually on fuel costs.To unlock these savings, the government must back financing mechanisms such as zero‑interest loans, subscription‑style purchases for solar and heat‑pump kits, and leasing schemes for electric vehicles. On a larger scale, a dual‑interest‑rate policy—standard rates for the broader economy and preferential, low‑cost funding for clean‑energy projects—could mirror the green‑lending models already used by China’s central bank and the Bank of Japan.In short, the United Kingdom faces a decisive moment. The 1970s taught that energy shocks can remake a nation; the question now is whether the UK will seize this crisis to protect living standards and build a resilient, low‑carbon energy system for the decades ahead.