Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Rory McIlroy says the intensive scouting trips he made to Augusta National in the weeks before the Masters were pivotal to his dominant performance. His second‑round 65, which featured six birdies in the final seven holes, set a new tournament record and made him the first defending champion to lead by six strokes at the halfway mark. Rather than using his three‑week break from the PGA Tour to rest, McIlroy leveraged his private jet to maximize time on the course. He described a routine of dropping his daughter Poppy at school, flying to Augusta, playing a round, then returning home for dinner with his wife Erica. He believes this blend of family time and focused practice was more valuable than a traditional tournament warm‑up in Houston or San Antonio. “I’ve been on this golf course so much the last three weeks,” McIlroy explained. He spent the period honing his chipping and putting, playing a single ball to explore the course’s nuances, and locating “weird places” that most players never encounter. He credits this immersion as a major factor in his record‑setting round. Looking ahead, McIlroy says the size of his lead will not dictate his mindset for round three. He will be joined by Sam Burns on Saturday, with Patrick Reed and Justin Rose slated for the penultimate group. “I’ve built up a nice cushion,” he noted, adding that his focus remains on “playing two good rounds again” and keeping his “foot on the gas.” McIlroy also dismissed any notion that he is trying to intimidate his rivals. “Golf is the most amazing game because it’s you, your ball and the course,” he said, emphasizing that external pressure should not affect a player’s performance.

Connor King, a 29-year-old trainer from County Tipperary, is on the verge of achieving one of the most remarkable upsets in Grand National history with his horse, Oscars Brother. King's humble beginnings in the racing world, with just two horses in his stable and fewer than 30 runners in his entire training career, make his potential victory all the more extraordinary. King's journey to the Grand National is a fairytale-like story that began with his brother, Daniel, purchasing Oscars Brother for just €8,000. The horse has since become a compelling argument against the notion that the Grand National has lost its heart and soul due to changes in the course and race conditions over the years. Despite the odds being against him, King remains optimistic about his chances, stating that Oscars Brother has the potential to improve over the marathon four-and-a-quarter mile trip at Aintree on Saturday. The horse's performance in the Brown Advisory Novice Chase at Cheltenham last month, where he finished fourth out of 18-1 odds, has raised hopes for King's underdog story. The Grand National, known for its unpredictability, has seen a shift in recent years with younger chasers and novice runners standing a better chance of winning. This change has given hope to trainers like King, who are looking to make a name for themselves in the competitive world of horse racing. For King, having a runner in the Grand National is already a victory, as the exposure and attention have been invaluable for his young training career. As he prepares for the big event, King is focused on enjoying the experience and taking it all in, knowing that it doesn't happen every day.

Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari – an Iranian‑American representative from Arizona – publicly labeled President Donald Trump an “evil human being” who aspires to be an emperor, and urged that he be removed from office in light of the escalating war with Iran. Ansari, whose parents fled the Iranian regime in the 1970s, issued a statement after Trump’s threat to annihilate Iran’s civilization was followed by a tentative two‑week cease‑fire. She expressed relief for the 90 million Iranians who had spent a harrowing day fearing a nuclear catastrophe. In a phone interview, the 34‑year‑old lawmaker described Trump as “mentally unstable, deeply troubled, and solely self‑interested,” adding that his policies have stripped basic services from average Americans while enriching his family. Ansari warned that Trump’s rhetoric – promising an “America first” stance yet launching strikes on seven nations – constitutes a clear danger to both Iran and the United States, and she called for the cabinet or Congress to intervene under the 25th Amendment. She cited a series of controversial foreign‑policy moves, including the alleged illegal kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, threats to seize Greenland, erosion of NATO credibility, and talk of taking over Cuba. In Iran, she argued, the administration has already committed war crimes by targeting schools, bridges and hospitals. Ansari also highlighted the broader humanitarian fallout: destroyed civilian infrastructure, a collapsing economy, soaring food‑security risks, and mass starvation. She relayed a conversation with a young Iranian doctor who described doubled prices and a dire economic outlook, urging the U.S. to cease attacks on civilian targets. Beyond Trump, the congresswoman announced plans to introduce articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, accusing him of repeatedly violating his oath by facilitating war‑crimes. She criticized Vice‑President JD Vance for not mobilising the cabinet to remove Trump, and warned that the current crisis represents a “five‑alarm‑fire moment” unprecedented in modern American history. Ansari’s remarks come amid a shifting Iranian diaspora sentiment. While some Iranian‑American groups initially celebrated the war’s onset, many now view the U.S. and Israeli bombing campaigns as counter‑productive, fearing they bolster the hard‑line regime. Following the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the regime’s grip appears tighter, with his son Mojtaba Khamenei assuming leadership. Ansari stressed that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains entrenched, and that the regime continues to exploit civilian suffering for propaganda. She concluded by urging Americans to recognise Iran’s rich cultural heritage and to reject the notion that bombing will liberate its people, emphasizing that the United States must avoid actions that only strengthen an authoritarian government.

Judith Rapoport, a leading child psychiatrist, passed away at 92, leaving a legacy defined by her groundbreaking work on obsessive‑compulsive disorder (OCD). Her 1989 book, The Boy Who Couldn’t Stop Washing, translated into more than twenty languages, presented complex research in a clear, jargon‑free style that resonated with a broad audience. OCD is characterized by compulsive rituals—re‑tying shoelaces, repeatedly checking switches, or incessant hand‑washing—that can dominate a person’s daily life. Before Rapoport’s book, many sufferers concealed their symptoms out of shame, unaware that they were not alone. Rapoport’s research demonstrated that OCD has a neurological foundation and may affect up to 2% of the population, challenging prevailing beliefs that it stemmed from overly strict parenting. She proved that the disorder can be hereditary and responsive to medication. In a pivotal 1989 double‑blind trial, she showed that the antidepressant clomipramine significantly reduced OCD symptoms, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve its use for the condition—a landmark moment in psychiatric treatment. Patients and colleagues credit her work with reducing stigma. "Reading Rapoport’s book washed away my shame," recalled Charles Gentz, who lives with OCD, while Professor Gabrielle Shapiro of the Icahn School of Medicine noted that the book “reduced the stigma for these people.” Rapoport herself reflected, “If my work alleviated just part of their pain, then it was not wasted time.” Born in New York City to a schoolteacher mother and a businessman father, she grew up with a literary lineage—her grandfather translated Ibsen into Yiddish. She excelled academically, graduating magna cum laude from Swarthmore College in 1955** and earning her medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1959, where she met her husband, Stanley Rapoport. After early positions at Mount Sinai and the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, she and her husband secured fellowships in Sweden, conducting research at Uppsala University and the Karolinska Institute on women seeking abortions abroad. Returning to the United States, Rapoport joined the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1976. There she led the institute’s child psychiatry branch from 1984, steering American psychiatry away from Freudian models toward a **biology‑focused** approach. Beyond OCD, she made significant contributions to the understanding of attention‑deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and childhood schizophrenia. Her 1978 study revealed that amphetamine improved concentration in both hyperactive and control children, contradicting the notion that stimulants only calm hyperactivity. Using MRI, she showed that childhood schizophrenia is progressive, involving loss of brain matter—a finding that shifted the focus from parenting to neurobiology. Rapoport’s expertise reached mainstream audiences through appearances on shows hosted by Oprah Winfrey and Larry King, further amplifying her message. By the time she retired in 2017, she had authored over 300 scientific papers, several books, and earned prestigious honors, including fellowship in the Institute of Medicine (1991) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2000). Colleague Gabrielle Shapiro described her as “a pioneer who turned child psychiatry into a modern, evidence‑based discipline.” Outside the laboratory, she enjoyed music, theatre, hiking, and gardening. She is survived by her husband, two sons, and four grandsons.

A sharp political row has ignited between the central government in Madrid and the Basque regional authorities over a request to display Picasso’s Guernica at the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao from 1 October to 30 June, coinciding with the 90th anniversary of the town’s devastating aerial attack.The masterpiece has been housed in Madrid’s Reina Sofía museum since 1992, and previous appeals to relocate it to the Basque Country have been consistently rejected.The latest demand has seen Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the outspoken conservative president of the Community of Madrid, and Aitor Esteban, leader of the Basque nationalist party, exchange barbed remarks, each accusing the other of a “provincial” outlook.Ayuso argued that moving the painting “doesn’t make sense” and quipped that, if origin mattered, “all of Picasso’s works should be sent to Málaga,” the artist’s birthplace. She also warned that the Reina Sofía fears the relocation could damage the delicate canvas.Esteban shot back, suggesting that Ayuso’s notion of national identity was reduced to “drinking beer on a terrace bar,” a jab at her stance on keeping Madrid’s bars open during the pandemic.Basque president Imanol Pradales challenged the Spanish government’s resolve, asking whether it could muster the courage to move Guernica after having “dragged Franco out of his tomb.” He framed the decision as a test of political will.The Basque administration proposes to exhibit the work at the Guggenheim for eight months, framing the display as a tribute to the victims of the 1937 bombing of the town of Guernica.The black‑and‑white canvas captures the horror of the attack carried out by the German Condor Legion and the Italian air force on 26 April 1937, an early example of strategic aerial bombardment of civilians during the Spanish Civil War.Casualty estimates for the raid vary widely—from as few as 126 to as many as 1,654 dead—yet the painting has become an enduring global symbol of the atrocities of war.After its debut at the 1937 Paris International Exposition, Guernica toured Europe and the United States. Picasso, who opposed its return to Spain under Franco’s dictatorship, later allowed it to reside at New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) for several decades.Art historian Francisco Chaparro cautioned that, while the Spanish government cannot entirely rule out a move, the risk of damage must outweigh any political motivations. He likened the situation to the Mona Lisa’s permanent stay at the Louvre and Velázquez’s *Las Meninas* at the Prado, noting that Guernica has been “rolled and unrolled on numerous occasions.”Artist José Manuel Ballester reminded observers that Picasso himself had envisioned the painting hanging in the Prado, a position he never assumed during the civil war.In 2000, the Reina Sofía rejected a request from MoMA to loan Guernica, declaring that the “great icon of our museum must remain, without exception, separate from the policy on lending works to other museums.”Note: The article was amended on 7 April 2026 to include the German Condor Legion alongside the Italian air force in describing the 1937 bombing.

The notion that space exploration is pointless is gaining traction, and for good reason. As the world grapples with pressing crises, the urgency to address them on our own planet grows. The idea of venturing into space, once driven by the possibility of encountering little green people, now seems less compelling.The "Where is everybody?" paradox, first posed by physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950, remains a profound question. If intelligent life exists elsewhere, why has it not made contact? The author's conclusion is that there is no intelligent life out there, and that our planet is unique in its beauty.The latest moon mission has sparked renewed debate, with many people taking offense to the idea that space exploration is unnecessary. Some argue that it stifles innovation and modernity, while others point to the technological advancements that have come from space exploration. However, the author counters that many of these advancements have been used for military purposes, and that the focus on space exploration detracts from more pressing issues on Earth.The author, Zoe Williams, a columnist for The Guardian, emphasizes that her criticism is not directed at the astronauts themselves, but rather at the financial outlay and energy expenditure dedicated to space travel. She questions whether the United States, in particular, has bigger priorities to address, such as domestic issues.

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.

House of Gloss invites viewers into the modest flat of Opal and Lana, a young trans femme couple living in Dundee. The walls are lined with photographs of spontaneous outings and vibrant sketches by Lana, a graffiti artist, while Opal’s makeup table holds an array of wigs that enable her drag performances after dark. Despite confronting pervasive discrimination outside, the couple’s home functions as a sanctuary of affection and mutual support.Director Mark Lyken adopts a gentle, slice‑of‑life visual style that feels less like a documentary and more like a personal visit. Intimate close‑ups and domestic scenes—cooking together, washing dishes—elevate ordinary moments into powerful expressions of love, especially given the pair’s history of family rejection. These simple gestures, captured with quiet reverence, underscore the resilience of their bond.The film also challenges conventional notions of family and home. In a striking sequence, Opal walks to a venue in full drag, confronting jeers and hostile stares that reveal lingering intolerance. By contrast, the documentary showcases the liberating atmosphere of queer club nights: neon lights, Lana at the DJ deck, and Opal dancing amid pulsating electronic beats. These scenes illustrate how safe, communal spaces serve as a vital “chosen family” for LGBTQ individuals.House of Gloss premieres on the True Story platform on 10 April, offering audiences a tender yet candid portrait of a modern queer partnership navigating love, identity, and community.

The notion that war is more profitable than peace may seem counterintuitive, but it is a concept that has been explored by economists and political scientists. David Keen, a renowned expert in the field, sheds light on the complex relationship between conflict and economics. In a world where wars are often funded by governments and fueled by industries such as arms manufacturing, the financial stakes are high.Keen's work challenges the conventional wisdom that war is solely a destructive force. Instead, he argues that war can be a lucrative business for certain individuals and groups. The production and sale of weapons, for instance, can generate significant profits. Moreover, the reconstruction efforts that follow a conflict can also be a lucrative venture.However, the human cost of war cannot be overstated. The devastating impact on civilians, infrastructure, and the environment is well-documented. As such, the question remains as to whether the economic benefits of war outweigh the humanitarian costs.