Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

On 23 June 2016, the United Kingdom’s electorate shifted from party‑centric voting to a binary choice between staying in or leaving the European Union. A decade later, about 60 % of the population still define themselves by the side they chose in that single referendum, turning a one‑off political decision into a lasting personal identity.While analysts often focus on the policy fallout—economic turbulence, party infighting, and shifting trade relations—the real impact runs deeper. The referendum ignited a civil‑war‑like split that continues to shape elections, media narratives, and everyday conversations across the country.Before the global upheavals of the George Floyd protests and the Covid‑19 vaccine rollout, Brexit was Britain’s most potent form of identity politics. It spawned new media outlets, such as GB News, and programmes like The Rest Is Politics, while also marginalising older cultural tropes like the “centrist dad” or “gammon” heckler on Question Time. Figures such as Nigel Farage and Zack Polanski now occupy the political fringe rather than the mainstream.The analysis draws on the new book Tribal Politics: How Brexit Divided Britain by political scientists Sara Hobolt and James Tilley. Their longitudinal surveys reveal a simple yet striking pattern: the referendum transformed a previously lukewarm public attitude toward the EU into a powerful, identity‑based habit.Prior to 2016, most Britons held only a mild Euroscepticism and gave the EU little thought. Even former Prime Minister David Cameron tried to silence the issue in 2006, believing it failed to engage voters. The sudden elevation of a niche concern to a national obsession forced ordinary citizens to pick a side, discuss it in pubs, and embed it into their self‑image—a process James Clear describes as building “identity‑based habits”.Data from Hobolt and Tilley show that emotional attachment to the Brexit identity was modest before the vote, rose sharply as the referendum approached, and surged dramatically after the result was announced. The post‑vote period saw a flood of EU‑themed merchandise, street rallies, and even flag‑clashes at cultural events such as the 2017 Last Night of the Proms.Crucially, the tribal divide has not faded. By 2025, only around 40 % of “Leavers” feel comfortable discussing politics with “Remainers”, and the sentiment is reciprocated. This goes beyond mere disagreement; it reflects a level of social discrimination where individuals on opposite sides would hesitate to share a home or marry into each other’s families.The authors note that the split now extends to perceptions of reality itself. Even in 2024, Remainers and Leavers disagreed on basic economic indicators, illustrating how the referendum reshaped not just policy preferences but fundamental worldviews.Class‑based voting, which dominated the 20th‑century British political landscape, has been largely supplanted by this new cultural cleavage. A previous study co‑authored by Tilley showed that the Labour Party’s turn toward the political centre in the 1990s eroded traditional working‑class loyalty. Today, leader Keir Starmer’s working‑class credentials appear largely symbolic, offering little substantive change.With class politics receded, culture wars have taken centre stage. The Brexit campaign’s vague promises about trade left the nation with a protracted, messy adjustment period. Immigration, famously dubbed the “baseball bat” issue by Dominic Cummings, remains the most polarising policy divide, followed by foreign aid and even the death penalty.Hobolt and Tilley’s most striking chart shows that while Remainers and Leavers clash over immigration, they share little disagreement on economic equality, workers’ rights, or public ownership—issues that directly affect household incomes. This suggests that the political battle is driven more by symbolic identity than by material concerns, benefitting those already financially secure.In sum, the United Kingdom’s post‑Brexit reality is one of entrenched tribalism, where a single referendum has reshaped social bonds, political discourse, and perceptions of truth itself. The nation continues to grapple with the legacy of a vote that turned a policy decision into a lasting cultural fault line.

Researchers have made a significant breakthrough in understanding why weight-loss medications, such as GLP1 receptor agonists, work better for some individuals than others. A recent study published in Nature has identified genetic variations in two genes involved in gut hormone pathways that regulate appetite and digestion. These genetic variations may help account for different weight-loss results or side-effects when taking glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) medicines, which mimic natural gut hormones to regulate appetite, insulin release, and digestion. The study analyzed data from 27,885 patients on GLP1 drugs and found that specific genetic variants were associated with slightly more weight loss or side-effects like nausea and vomiting. The findings suggest that genetic differences may contribute to why people respond differently to weight-loss jabs. However, the overall impact of genetics appeared to be modest, with non-genetic factors such as sex, drug type, dose, and duration appearing to explain a substantially larger proportion of variability. The study's results reinforce that while there is substantial variability in response to GLP1 therapies, genetics is only one part of a much more complex picture. According to Marie Spreckley, an obesity expert at the University of Cambridge, the study provides plausible evidence that genetic variants could affect outcomes. However, she notes that the magnitude of these genetic effects is small in clinical terms, and that behavioral, clinical, and treatment-related factors remain the dominant drivers of outcomes. The study's authors suggest that their findings could support future efforts to use genetic information when making treatment choices for obesity. However, Spreckley cautions that the evidence is not yet sufficient to support using genetic information to guide treatment decisions in routine clinical practice.

The company's diverse portfolio and innovative approach to technology have made it an attractive investment opportunity. However, the use of AI in various sectors has also raised concerns about authenticity and originality, as seen in the backlash against authors and journalists who have used AI tools in their work.

More than 100 United States‑based international law scholars have signed an open letter denouncing the recent US‑Israeli strikes on Iran as a violation of the United Nations Charter and potentially amounting to war crimes. The letter, released on Thursday, asserts that the campaign – launched on February 28 – proceeded without UN Security Council authorization and without credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. According to the scholars, the legal basis for force against another state exists only in self‑defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or when expressly sanctioned by the Security Council. Iran has not attacked the United States or Israel, and the Security Council did not approve the operation. The experts organize their concerns into four categories: the legality of the war decision, the conduct of hostilities, threatening rhetoric from senior officials, and what they describe as the dismantling of civilian‑protection safeguards within the US defence establishment under Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves‑off” approach. Among the most alarming incidents highlighted is the strike on a primary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the conflict, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of them children. The letter also cites attacks on hospitals, water treatment facilities, and energy infrastructure, emphasizing that schools, health facilities, and homes have been targeted. The signatories condemn public statements by senior US officials, including a mid‑March remark by former President Donald Trump that the United States might strike Iran “just for fun,” and early‑March comments from Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth dismissing “stupid rules of engagement.” They argue that such rhetoric reflects an “alarming disrespect” for international humanitarian law, which is designed to protect civilians and combatants alike. Financially, the letter notes that the war is costing US taxpayers up to $2 billion per day, underscoring the broader economic burden of the conflict. The open letter was co‑authored by prominent legal scholars such as Yale Law School’s Oona Hathaway, former State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, NYU’s Philip Alston, and former Human Rights Watch chief Kenneth Roth. While the authors focus on the United States’ conduct, they warn of a heightened risk of atrocities throughout the region. Emphasizing the need for consistent application of international law, the scholars write: “We urge US government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear US commitment to and respect for norms of international law.”

The Guardian’s March reading roundup gathers a diverse set of recommendations from both its writers and its readership, offering a snapshot of the titles that captured their attention over the past month.John Lanchester highlights two recent British novels that resonated with him after completing his own manuscript: Drayton and Mackenzie by Alexander Starritt, a story of friendship intertwined with business, and The New Life by Tom Crewe, which explores gay life in the 1890s. His European picks include Eurotrash by Christian Kracht, a darkly comic road‑trip tale, Perfection by Vincenzo Latronico, a critique of the digital‑nomad lifestyle, and Olga Tokarczuk’s genre‑defying Drive Your Plow Over the Bones of the Dead. Lanchester also notes his own recent release, Look What You Made Me Do, available from Faber for £20 via the Guardian bookshop.James, a regular Guardian reader, is immersed in Tom’s Crossing by Mark Danielewski. He describes the 1,200‑page modern western as a masterclass in character depth and meticulous detail, urging readers not to be deterred by its length.Patmeena Sabit turns to shorter forms when time is scarce, recommending Hue and Cry by James Alan McPherson for its understated humanity, Fifty‑Two Stories (a new Chekhov collection translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky) for its blend of classics and previously untranslated pieces, and Ada Limón’s poetry collection Bright Dead Things for its poignant beauty. Sabit also promotes her own work, Good People, published by Virago at £16.99.David praises Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski, America’s Cold War Prophet by Edward Luce, calling it a dense yet illuminating autobiography that traces U.S. and global power dynamics from the 1960s to the early Trump era, and recommending a piecemeal reading approach.Arash finds profound resonance in Mother Mary Comes to Me by Arundhati Roy. He describes the memoir as an emotionally powerful tribute to Roy’s mother, noting its refusal to fall into gendered clichés while championing compassion and resistance against chauvinism.

Dame Carole Jordan, who has died aged 84, was a prominent figure in astrophysics, celebrated for her groundbreaking research on the outer atmosphere of the sun and other cool stars. Her contributions to the field have left a lasting impact, and her legacy extends beyond her scientific achievements as a champion for women in science.Jordan's fascination with astronomy began at a young age, inspired by books from authors like Arthur Eddington and Fred Hoyle. She pursued her passion for astronomy at University College London, where she was interviewed by CW Allen, professor of astronomy, and offered a place. Her academic journey led her to become a leading expert in ultraviolet spectroscopy of the sun and other stars.In 1962, a rocket-borne experiment led by US astronomer Richard Tousey measured the EUV spectrum of the sun, discovering a dozen unidentified emission lines. Jordan dedicated her research to understanding these lines, eventually becoming the world expert on the subject. Her 1965 PhD thesis, Analysis of the Solar Ultraviolet Spectrum, concluded that several lines were due to transitions in highly ionized iron.Jordan's most-cited paper, The Ionization Equilibrium of Elements Between Carbon and Nickel, published in 1969, laid out the ionization equilibrium as a function of temperature for the main ionized states of common heavy elements. This work became a definitive guide to EUV spectroscopy. The launch of the International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE) in 1978 enabled her to extend her analyses to other stars, solidifying her position as an expert on the chromospheres of cool stars.Jordan's achievements extended beyond her scientific contributions. In 1994, she became the first female president of the Royal Astronomical Society, a testament to her dedication to promoting women in science. She was also a staunch supporter of the Royal Astronomical Society, serving as secretary and vice-president of the Institute of Physics.Throughout her career, Jordan received numerous accolades, including the RAS's gold medal in 2005 and being made a dame in 2006. Her legacy serves as an inspiration to future generations of scientists, particularly women, to pursue careers in STEM fields.

The 2026 International Booker Prize shortlist has been unveiled, marking the award's 10th anniversary. Daniel Kehlmann, Marie NDiaye, and Yáng Shuāng-zǐ are among the six authors competing for the top honor.The annual prize celebrates the best works of fiction translated into English, with the winning author-translator pair receiving £50,000, split equally.The shortlisted authors and their works are:Daniel Kehlmann - 'The Director', translated by Ross BenjaminMarie NDiaye - 'The Witch', translated by Jordan StumpYáng Shuāng-zǐ - 'Taiwan Travelogue', translated by Lin KingRene Karabash - 'She Who Remains', translated by Izidora AngelShida Bazyar - 'The Nights Are Quiet in Tehran', translated by Ruth MartinAna Paula Maia - 'On Earth As It Is Beneath', translated by Padma ViswanathanThe judging panel, chaired by author Natasha Brown, praised the shortlisted books for capturing moments from across the past century, saying they 'reverberate with history' and offer 'hope, insight and burning humanity.'The winner will be announced on May 19, with each shortlisted title receiving £5,000.

Dua Lipa, the Brit award-winning pop star, has been announced as the curator of this year's London literature festival at the Southbank Centre. The festival, now in its 19th year, will run from October 21 to November 1.Lipa will shape the programme of events across the opening weekend and beyond in collaboration with her Service95 book club, which she launched in 2023. This initiative is part of the Southbank Centre's 75th anniversary programme and during the UK's National Year of Reading.Lipa has established herself as a prominent advocate for reading through her book club, where she spotlights established writers and emerging voices. She has interviewed notable authors such as Margaret Atwood, George Saunders, and Olga Tokarczuk.“Reading has anchored me through every chapter of my life,” Lipa said. “Curating the Southbank Centre’s London literature festival is a dream come true. I’m thrilled to indulge one of my greatest obsessions: books and the brilliant minds behind them.”Mark Ball, artistic director of the Southbank Centre, praised Lipa's passion for literature, stating, “Dua Lipa is a global cultural force with millions of fans around the world, and her passion for the written and spoken word has inspired a new generation of readers.”The 2026 edition will feature a mix of ticketed and free events, highlighting both Lipa's favourite writers and new literary voices. The full programme is expected to be announced over the summer.

The literary world is grappling with a new challenge: detecting AI-written books. Kate Nash, a literary agent, recently discovered an AI prompt at the top of a submission letter, which raised concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in book writing. The controversy surrounding Mia Ballard's 'femgore' horror novel Shy Girl, which was suspected to be up to 78% AI-generated, has forced literary agents and publishers to reevaluate their ability to detect AI-generated work. Hachette halted US publication of Shy Girl and removed it from online retailers after an internal review. Experts warn that AI detection tools are not foolproof and that the technology is advancing rapidly. Prof Patrick Juola, a US computer scientist, likens the failure of AI detection tools to antibiotic resistance, stating that AI is a learning system continually upgraded by its manufacturers. Mor Naaman, a professor of information science at Cornell Tech, agrees that publishers won't stand a chance in detecting AI-generated books soon. He notes that AI learns quickly how to avoid detection and that the line between human and AI-generated content is becoming increasingly blurred. The debate raises questions about the role of AI in creative writing and the importance of trust between readers and writers. Anna Ganley, of the Society of Authors, launched the Human Authored scheme to identify works written by humans, but it relies on trust, a value that is inherently vulnerable. Amelia Hill, the author of the article, highlights the importance of preserving the human element in literature, stating that AI may flood the market with content, but it cannot replace the messy, difficult work of being human.