Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Gray whales have historically been a rare sight in the San Francisco Bay. They migrate over 10,000 miles from Mexico's Baja California to the Arctic region, seldom stopping in the busy shipping corridor for prolonged periods. However, in recent years, this has changed in a dire way.A new study published in the journal Frontiers in Marine Science has found that gray whales in the bay have been dying at alarming rates, largely due to collisions with vessels. Eastern North Pacific (ENP) gray whales began to appear more frequently in the well-trafficked maritime corridor around 2018.According to researchers, at least 18% of gray whales that entered the bay from 2018 to 2025 have died. They determined that for more than 40% of the whale carcasses, the cause of death was blunt force trauma consistent with vessel strikes, prompting calls for renewed efforts to help avoid more fatal collisions.“It was historically very unusual for them to enter the bay, especially for longer amounts of time or consistently year after year,” said Josie Slaathaug, lead author of the study. There are whale subgroups known to hunt for food south of the Arctic, but a majority of the recently spotted whales feeding in the bay were not a part of these foraging clusters.A wave of new whale presence had not been observed in the waters since the late 1990s. Researchers have theorized that Arctic warming is disrupting food availability for the whales, driving them to hunt in new places such as the bay, although it remains unclear what exactly they may be eating there.Their potential new feeding corner, though, is a major shipping route. The true mortality rate for whales in the bay may be higher, hovering somewhere from 40% to 50%, Slaathaug said.In recent years, there have been several reports of dead whales that wash up on Bay Area beaches. The ENP gray whale population has been in decline due to malnutrition and starvation from climate-driven prey shifts in the Arctic. The Southwest Fisheries Science Center estimated a population total of about 13,000 whales, its lowest count since 1970.“It’s not unique to their migratory corridor that a lot of whales are dying,” Slaathaug said. “What is unique about San Francisco Bay and this study was that there was such a clear emerging cause of death.”Some local efforts are under way to reduce vessel collisions. The Marine Mammal Center has developed a program called Whale Smart, to educate vessel operators in the San Francisco Bay on how to interpret whale behavior to avoid close encounters.In Alaska, where vessels also pose a threat to the whale population, one fleet company partnered with WhaleSpotter, a company that uses AI and thermal imaging to detect the presence of whales, so they can change course well in advance.Last year, the Center for Biological Diversity, a conservation group, sued the US Coast Guard, which regulates vessel traffic off the California coast, for failing to analyze how vessel routes may harm whales and sea turtles.“This most recent study about the gray whales reaffirms that we have way underestimated the problem and we are not managing human activities well enough to avoid the whales,” said Catherine Kilduff, senior attorney at the center.Federal action is needed to reduce the fatal collisions, Kilduff said. According to the Endangered Species Act, the coast guard should be consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service when setting shipping lanes to assess impact to marine wildlife.Kilduff also suggested mandatory speed limits for vessels. “There are voluntary speed reductions on the west coast, but there is evidence that those aren’t effective. The compliance rate isn’t high enough,” she said.A 2022 study co-authored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that the average speeds of large vessels had decreased from 2010 to 2019 in voluntary speed reduction zones. But, researchers determined that the cooperation rate of roughly 50% was lower than the amount needed to reduce vessel strike-related mortality to a level that maintains a sustainable whale population.“These whales are using the oceans in such a sophisticated way. We can learn so much from them, and if we can figure out ways to avoid killing them, I know that they’ll come back to healthy population levels,” Kilduff said.

The humanitarian situation in Sudan has taken a devastating turn as the country prepares to mark the third anniversary of the brutal conflict between the army and paramilitaries. Nearly 700 civilians have been killed in drone strikes in Sudan since the beginning of 2026, according to the United Nations.The increasing use of drones in the conflict has been noted by the UN's humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher, who warned that the world has "failed to meet the test of Sudan". The conflict has disrupted life across Sudan, particularly in the southern Kordofan region and areas of the west controlled by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).Doctors Without Borders reported two more deaths following drone strikes launched by the Sudanese army in the Darfur region, and treated 56 people wounded in the attack. The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) said that drones were "responsible for nearly 80 percent" of the at least 245 children reported killed or injured during the first three months of the year.The UN's World Food Programme (WFP) warned that the situation is being "dangerously compounded" by the war in the Middle East, which has disrupted supply chains for aid groups. The US-Israeli war on Iran has forced aid groups to use costlier, more time-consuming routes, driving up the cost of food, fuel, and fertilizer.Nearly 34 million people, almost two-thirds of the population, need humanitarian support, making Sudan "the world's largest humanitarian crisis". The situation is dire, with hundreds of thousands of children acutely malnourished, and millions being deprived of an education. Women and girls are facing systemic and brutal sexual violence.

The pursuit of a 'Greater Israel' has been a longstanding ambition for some factions within Israel, but Iran's persistent opposition continues to pose a significant challenge to its realization. The concept of a 'Greater Israel' generally refers to the expansion of Israeli territory to include areas that are currently part of neighboring countries, a notion that has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions in the region. Iran's stance on this issue is rooted in its historical and ideological opposition to Israel, viewing it as a strategic threat in the region. Iran's active engagement in supporting Palestinian groups and its vocal criticism of Israeli policies have been key aspects of its approach to countering Israeli influence and expansion plans. The geopolitical dynamics involving Iran and Israel are complex, with implications extending beyond bilateral relations to impact the broader Middle Eastern landscape. The 'Greater Israel' project, if pursued, could potentially redraw the regional map, leading to far-reaching consequences for peace and stability in the area. Despite these ambitions, Iran's resistance underscores the challenges Israel faces in achieving its territorial goals. The situation remains a critical point of tension, with international implications that could affect not only the Middle East but also global geopolitics.

A dramatic video has surfaced showing a drone exploding in northern Israel. The footage, which has garnered significant attention, underscores the persistent security threats in the region.The incident, while alarming, has not been explicitly linked to any specific group or entity. Israel has faced numerous drone attacks in the past, often attributed to militant groups operating in neighboring countries.The Israeli military and government have heightened security measures in response to these threats, including bolstering air defense systems and conducting targeted strikes against perceived threats.This latest incident serves as a stark reminder of the fragile security situation in northern Israel and the broader Middle East region.

Nelson Mandela once claimed sport could spark hope where despair prevailed – a sentiment that now feels overly optimistic as climate change threatens every arena, from football pitches to alpine slopes.Extreme weather events are already cancelling competitions and rendering venues unplayable through floods, wildfires and storms. Rising heat and air‑pollution expose athletes to heat‑related illnesses, asthma and cardiovascular strain, while also increasing injury risk and diminishing performance for officials and spectators alike.Countries most vulnerable to climate impacts face the harshest sporting challenges. As Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley warned, athletes must compete on the conditions that exist, not on idealised pitches, while wealthier nations and governing bodies often look the other way.Historian David Goldblatt estimates sport’s carbon footprint rivals that of a small‑ to medium‑sized nation – roughly the emissions of Cuba to Poland. Yet the industry continues to chase growth, attracting sponsorship from fossil‑fuel giants and even entities reminiscent of the tobacco era.A 2024 “Dirty Money” report by the New Weather Institute revealed that state‑owned and private fossil‑fuel companies have poured at least $5.6 billion (£4.2 billion) into global sport across 205 active deals. The recent Milan‑Cortina Winter Olympics relied on oil major Eni to fund artificial snow, while the upcoming men’s football World Cup – labelled the “most polluting ever” by Scientists for Global Responsibility – will be plastered with ads from Aramco, the world’s largest corporate greenhouse‑gas emitter, with emissions projected to be 92 % higher than typical tournaments between 2010‑2022.Fans and grassroots organisations are pushing back. Groups such as Surfers Against Sewage, Fossil Free Football, FrontRunners and Protect Our Winters are mobilising, while clubs like Forest Green Rovers and athletes such as Australian cricket captain Pat Cummins are publicly denouncing fossil‑fuel ties.Alternative sponsorships are emerging: Northern Rail backs the Rugby Super League, Metrobank partners with cricket, and Oxford United’s limited‑edition shirt celebrates John Ruskin’s “Study of a Wild Rose,” linking sport to environmental heritage.“The Hotspot” aims to surface the most compelling stories, analyse data, and chart a path forward for sport in a warming world. As the planet races toward a climatic finish line, sport must deliver its own last‑second victory.This excerpt is from the inaugural issue of The Hotspot newsletter. To subscribe, visit this page and follow the instructions.

Scientists have confirmed that March 2026 was the hottest March on record in the United States, underscoring the urgency of the climate crisis. Yet, a weekend gathering in a hotel basement near the White House, organized by the climate‑denying Heartland Institute, celebrated a very different narrative.The audience—predominantly middle‑aged men in suits—cheered the claim that the world is finally “waking up” to the idea that there is no climate crisis. Heartland Institute president James Taylor described the atmosphere as “wonderful” and declared that “the truth is winning out.”The event’s headline speaker was Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator—a figure also rumored to be under consideration for the role of attorney general. Zeldin framed the conference as a day of “vindication,” accusing a “cabal of elites” of using climate science to push a political agenda.Booths and banners, sponsored by groups such as the CO2 Coalition, displayed slogans like “CO2 is a lifesaver” and “There is no climate crisis.” Pamphlets touted fossil fuels as the “greenest energy source” and dismissed net‑zero targets as unfounded.While some attendees denied the existence of global warming outright, others conceded that temperatures were rising but insisted it was not a human‑caused emergency. Taylor later clarified that “humans have played a role in climate change, but that is not the same as a ‘climate crisis.’”Harvard historian Naomi Oreskes noted that think tanks like Heartland portray themselves as underdogs, even though they receive substantial backing from powerful interests. The institute has historically been funded by major oil companies—including Shell and ExxonMobil—and by the Mercers, a prominent Republican donor family.When asked about current funding sources, Taylor dismissed the inquiry as “curious and disappointing,” insisting that the organization is supported by individuals who value “freedom and affordable energy.” He added that the institute has not received oil money for nearly two decades, though he would “gladly accept” it again.Under the Trump administration, groups such as the Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) have secured unprecedented policy influence. Their agenda includes the repeal of the EPA’s “endangerment finding,” a legal basis for most U.S. climate regulations. During Zeldin’s introduction, CFACT president Craig Rucker announced the rollback to a cheering crowd.CFACT’s lobbying helped cancel a California offshore‑wind project, while the CO2 Coalition’s founder helped establish a White House committee that questioned climate science during Trump’s first term. Most recently, the coalition succeeded in placing an ophthalmologist with no air‑pollution expertise on a key EPA advisory panel.Despite the deniers’ confidence, polling consistently shows that a **vast majority of Americans**—including 42 % of young Republicans—acknowledge climate change and view it as a pressing issue. Taylor countered by citing a 2019 survey indicating limited willingness to pay higher electricity bills for climate action, but the broader data suggest strong public concern.Younger activists disrupted a youth‑focused panel, arguing that the conference’s “geriatric white‑male” audience was out of touch with the climate realities that will affect their generation. One protester shouted, “There’s no such thing as fossil‑fuel‑caused climate change!” before being removed.The clash highlighted a growing divide: while right‑wing think tanks are consolidating power within the federal government, public opinion and scientific consensus continue to affirm the reality and urgency of global warming.

Iran's judiciary announced on Monday that the assets of Zahra Ghanbari, captain of the Iranian women's football team, have been released. This decision comes after Ghanbari initially sought asylum in Australia, only to later withdraw her claim and return to Iran. Ghanbari was among a group of six players and one backroom staff member who sought asylum in Australia in March, following their participation in the Women's Asian Cup. The move sparked controversy, particularly as it coincided with the escalating conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States. Upon their return to Iran, Ghanbari and the other players were greeted as heroes in a special ceremony in central Tehran on March 19. The Iranian judiciary's decision to release Ghanbari's assets was made after she declared her innocence and changed her behavior. The release of Ghanbari's assets is significant, as Iranian authorities have been accused of pressuring athletes who compete abroad, threatening their families or seizing their property if they defect or make statements against the Islamic republic. Rights groups have repeatedly highlighted these concerns, citing cases where athletes have faced intimidation and coercion. In related developments, two Iranian women's footballers remain in Australia and have been training with the Brisbane Roar club. The controversy surrounding the team's asylum claims has unfolded against the backdrop of Iran's men's team preparing to play in the World Cup in the United States in June.

Bahrain's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has strongly condemned the 'continued malicious drone attacks' launched from Iraq towards Bahrain and several Gulf Cooperation Council countries. The summoning of the Iraqi envoy follows similar action by Saudi Arabia, signalling growing regional concern over pro-Iranian groups based in Iraq. The diplomatic move complicates Baghdad's efforts to rebuild ties with its Arab neighbours. Bahrain's Ministry of Foreign Affairs delivered an official protest note to the Iraqi charge d'affaires, Ahmed Ismail al-Karawi, calling on Baghdad to address 'these threats and attacks urgently and responsibly'. Iraq has become a staging ground for a secondary conflict during the US-Israel war on Iran, with drones and missiles launched by Iran-aligned armed groups repeatedly targeting Gulf states and Jordan. US interests in Iraq, particularly the embassy in Baghdad, have also been targeted. Despite a two-week Iran-US ceasefire, several Gulf nations reported missile and drone attacks on their territories just hours after the ceasefire was announced. Iran-aligned groups in Iraq had announced their commitment to the ceasefire and suspended their actions towards Gulf countries. The attacks are severely testing Iraq's painstakingly rebuilt ties with its Arab neighbours. Baghdad has categorically rejected the use of its territory to target Gulf states or Jordan, adding that it is taking necessary measures 'in accordance with the constitution and the law'.

A French court has convicted cement giant Lafarge of financing terrorism through its Syrian subsidiary, fining the company €1.12 million ($1.32m) and confiscating €30 million ($35.1m) worth of its assets. The court also sentenced former CEO Bruno Lafont to six years in jail.The Paris court ruled that Lafarge had paid protection money directly to ISIL (ISIS) and other armed groups, breaching European sanctions to operate in northern Syria during the country's civil war in 2013-2014. The company paid a total of €5.59 million ($6.55m) to armed groups in Syria, including to ISIL and the al-Nusra Front.The court found that Lafarge's payments helped to strengthen groups that carried out deadly attacks in Syria and beyond. The company's former deputy managing director, Christian Herrault, was sentenced to five years in jail, while other former employees received fines and sentences ranging from one to seven years.The case marks the first time a company has been tried in France for financing terrorism. Lafarge, now part of Swiss building materials conglomerate Holcim, acknowledged paying nearly €13 million ($15.2m) to middlemen to keep its Syrian cement factory running during the war. The company claimed it bore no responsibility for the money winding up in the hands of armed groups.In a separate case in the United States, Lafarge admitted to paying $6m to ISIL and the al-Nusra Front to allow employees, customers, and suppliers to pass through checkpoints. The company paid $778m in forfeiture and fines as part of a plea agreement.