Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Iran’s nationwide internet outage, which started on 28 February following the first US‑Israel strikes, has now stretched beyond 38 days, making it the most prolonged country‑wide shutdown since the Arab‑spring era. Authorities ordered a total cut‑off of global internet services on the day the conflict began, after a brief shutdown in January amid nationwide protests. More than five weeks without external connectivity has left most Iranians dependent on state‑run television and a single satellite channel for news. According to Amir Rashidi, director of the Iran‑focused human‑rights group Miaan, many citizens are unaware of the full scale of the war because “their only sources are Iranian state television and one satellite channel.” This limited media environment means Iranians receive information filtered through government agendas. Doug Madory, director of internet analysis at Kentik, noted that while sub‑national outages have occurred in places like Myanmar, Ukraine and Gaza, Iran’s shutdown is the longest and most severe at the national level since Libya’s six‑month blackout during the Arab Spring. Sudan’s 37‑day shutdown in 2019 is the only comparable recent case. In response, the regime has pushed users onto the National Information Network (NIN), a domestic intranet under development for 16 years. The NIN provides parallel services—local search engines, an Iranian‑styled streaming platform, and messaging apps—but operates under strict government monitoring. Platforms are known to hand over user data to authorities. A Miaan Group report highlighted that domestic search engines censor key terms. For example, searches for “war” or “ceasefire” on Gerdoo, Iran’s home‑grown Google alternative, return no results, while another local engine frames the conflict as a decisive Iranian victory. Circumventing the blackout is costly and risky. Some Iranians travel overland to Turkey to regain connectivity, while others purchase VPNs or special SIM cards on a hidden market at prices ranging from $6 to $24 per gigabyte—five to twenty times the global average—effectively turning internet access into a luxury commodity. Despite the human and economic toll, Miaan Group warns that the shutdown is likely to persist as the government continues to promote the NIN, even though many of its services remain unreliable or non‑functional. There is no clear indication that unrestricted internet access will be restored in the near future.

The B Corp certification, a coveted ethical status for companies, has undergone its biggest overhaul in 19 years. B Lab, the organisation behind the certification, has raised the standards required to qualify, putting dozens of companies at risk of losing their status. Previously, companies could make up for poor performance in one area by scoring highly in another. However, the new system requires companies to meet 'non-negotiable' standards in every one out of seven categories, with attainment verified by a third-party audit. The overhaul has been partly motivated by changes to EU law that require companies boasting of any ethical standard, including B Corp status, to be rubber-stamped by an external organisation. Sources familiar with the process said that some of the 10,000 companies that have the status will need to improve ethical standards to recertify, which they must do every three years. Analysis by the Guardian of the publicly available B Corp database suggests hundreds are already at, or close to, the 80-point threshold required, even under the old, less onerous system. Of more than 2,000 UK B Corps, more than 60 score exactly 80 points, including the Kent-based digital marketing agency Sleeping Giant Media and VoucherCodes, a website that provides details of discount offers from leading brands. Larger companies will face more extensive requirements under the new standard, including declaring their tax policies and setting science-based emissions targets across all areas of the business. One source said the changes could even affect companies that now score highly, such as the private bank Coutts, which has a score of 107.6 and does not have to recertify until 2028. B Lab UK said: 'Our goal is not for every business to become a B Corp, but for every business to behave like one.'

Michigan overpowered Arizona from the start, turning their highly anticipated Final Four matchup into a 91-73 rout in Indianapolis. Junior center Aday Mara scored a career-high 26 points and grabbed nine rebounds, leading the Wolverines to their fifth straight March Madness victory by double digits.The Wolverines (36-3) became the first team to break 90 points five times in a single tournament. Michigan will face UConn in the championship game after the Huskies defeated Illinois 71-62 in the earlier semi-final.UConn is seeking its third championship in four seasons under Dan Hurley, who would become the only active coach with more than two titles if they win. The Huskies have not lost a tournament game past the opening weekend since 2009.Arizona, led by Koa Peat's 16 points and 11 rebounds, struggled with poor shooting, including just 6 for 17 from three-point range. Michigan's victory marked a significant upset given the Wildcats' strong defensive reputation entering the game.In the championship game, UConn will look to break a tie with North Carolina and move into third place alone in national titles, trailing only UCLA (11) and Kentucky (eight).

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>

President Donald Trump has been privately discussing the possibility of replacing Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, according to two people briefed on the conversations. This development comes after Gabbard's testimony at a Congressional hearing where she declined to condemn Joe Kent, a former deputy who argued that Iran did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.Trump's frustration with Gabbard reportedly stems from her perceived defense of Kent and her reluctance to support the administration's position on attacking Iran. The President tends to poll his advisers when considering personnel changes, which suggests that Gabbard's position may be precarious.Despite this, Trump offered a mixed endorsement of Gabbard on Sunday, stating, "Yeah, sure... I mean, she's a little bit different in her thought process than me, but that doesn't make somebody not available to serve."The White House has defended Gabbard, with spokesperson Steven Cheung stating, "As President Trump just said in his remarks, he has confidence in Director Gabbard and the tireless work she is doing."Gabbard has faced challenges in her role, including criticism for revoking the security clearances of 37 people, including congressional aides, without consulting the White House. Her tenure has been marked by both support and controversy, particularly regarding her stance on Iran and her criticism of US involvement in foreign wars.

Washington, D.C. – In a historic session, the United States Supreme Court examined the Trump administration’s bid to curtail the long‑standing practice of granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil. The hearing drew a sizable crowd of civil‑rights and immigration advocates who decried the proposal as unconstitutional. Lawyers representing the administration argued that the 14th Amendment has been misread for over a century and that citizenship should be limited to children of parents who are legally domiciled in the United States. They contended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” permits the exclusion of infants born to undocumented or temporary‑status parents. Opposing counsel from the ACLU and other groups countered that the amendment’s language, reinforced by the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, unequivocally guarantees citizenship regardless of parental status. “The rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to keep it out of reach of any official who might try to destroy it,” ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang said. The proceedings were underscored by President Donald Trump’s unprecedented presence in the courtroom, making him the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. Trump left the hearing abruptly, later posting on Truth Social that the United States is “the only country in the world stupid enough to allow ‘birthright’ citizenship.” Protesters such as 21‑year‑old Luis Villaguzman of LULAC expressed personal stakes, noting that the policy would strip benefits from pregnant immigrant mothers and jeopardize their children’s future. “This hits close to home,” he said. Justices probed the administration’s claims, with Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asking, “Who is domiciled?” while Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the repeated references to “domicile” in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why Congress had not clarified the citizenship scope in the 1952 statute, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned of the logistical chaos the order could create. Legal scholars warned that the executive order could affect roughly 255,000 infants annually, according to a joint analysis by the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, potentially creating a “self‑perpetuating, multigenerational underclass.” Outside the court, immigration advocates emphasized the broader implications: the measure could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of children, many of Latino heritage, and compound the administration’s aggressive deportation agenda. The Court has not set a date for a final ruling, but the hearing offered a glimpse into the judicial scrutiny the case will face as the nation watches a potential reshaping of a core constitutional right.

Highland cows, a hardy breed known for their shaggy coats and upturned horns, have been a part of Hothfield Heathlands nature reserve in Kent. They were introduced to restore and maintain the reserve through wild grazing. However, their presence led to an unexpected consequence. The cows became an unlikely sensation on social media, particularly on TikTok, with videos of them going viral. This sudden fame attracted a large number of visitors to the reserve, who were eager to take selfies with the cows and even stroke them. Despite warnings from Kent Wildlife Trust to keep at least 10 meters away, the situation became unmanageable. The trust eventually made the decision to remove the cows from the reserve, at least temporarily, to protect them from the stress and potential harm caused by the influx of visitors. The cows, which have survived the harsh climate of the Scottish Highlands for over 1,000 years, were becoming distressed and could have reacted out of fear if the situation continued. This incident is not an isolated case. The popularity of Highland cows has caused trouble before, such as in January when three people had to be rescued after getting lost while searching for viral Highland cattle on Butser Hill in Hampshire. The hashtag #highlandcow has reportedly reached millions of people on social media, highlighting the significant public interest in these animals. The removal of the Highland cows from Hothfield Heathlands serves as a reminder of the impact of social media on wildlife and the importance of respecting the personal space of animals, even those as adorable and charismatic as Highland cows.

Egil Johansen, the landlord of the Kenton pub in Hackney, east London, describes recent incidents involving children as "like the wild west." He has now banned children entirely after a three-year-old fell down a cellar hatch while parents sat elsewhere, a five-year-old crashed into staff carrying drinks, and six parents brought 10 hyperactive children after a birthday party while ignoring their behavior."In every case, the parents blame us when something goes wrong or get really angry when we ask them to control their children," says Johansen, who has run the pub for 17 years. "I'm legally obliged to keep children safe on my premises and if the parents let their children run riot, the only answer is to not allow them in at all."Johansen initially tried banning children only after 5pm, but this interim measure failed to address the underlying issues. Despite online criticism framing him as the "baddie," he expresses sadness about the situation: "I'm a publican; I'm a people-person. It gives me no joy to ban anyone, but it's just not safe: parents don't control their children and our other customers were beginning to go elsewhere. I had no choice."The Kenton's decision reflects a growing trend among UK pubs seeking to differentiate themselves from establishments that "resemble soft play centres without the ball pit." While some welcome this shift, others view it as unwelcoming to families, creating a culture war in the pub industry.Lee Jones, landlord of the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, Worcestershire, reversed a previous child ban: "We're dog-friendly, child-friendly, adult-friendly. We're just friendly – we don't distinguish. Pubs are for the community and I don't see bans in the spirit of what we're here for." Jones reports that when children become rowdy, staff can address the issue with parents, though this is rarely needed.Stephen Boyd, who runs the Alma in south London, took a different approach after attempting to attract young families. He found families with children consumed disproportionate time and resources with special requests for diluted drinks, heated beverages, and customized meals, while adult customers waited longer for their orders."You just need a couple screaming, banging on a table or running up and down, and it dictates the whole atmosphere of the pub," Boyd says. "Parents would take massive umbrage if staff asked them to stop their children doing something." After implementing a child ban, he describes the change as "a fucking revelation" with staff retention improving and takings doubling.Despite the positive results, Boyd faced significant backlash: "I got a lot of online hate. Mainly from people who had never been to the pub but felt I was doing something morally hateful."Tom Stainer, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale, acknowledges the debate is "very live" but emphasizes: "But you do have to look at the responsibility of the parents in these situations, not just at the pubs. They're the ones responsible for making sure that their children behave."Financial considerations also drive some decisions. Mandy Keefe, landlady of the Wheel Inn in Ashford, banned children partly for behavioral reasons but also financial ones: "If a third of my Sunday customers were children eating from a reduced-rate child's menu and not drinking any alcohol, that wouldn't be financially viable."Across the UK, pubs are making individual decisions based on their specific circumstances, but as Johansen's experience demonstrates, it only takes one serious incident to settle the question for good.

The UK government has instructed HS2 Ltd to assess the feasibility of operating its high-speed trains at reduced speeds, aiming to curb escalating costs and facilitate an earlier launch in the 2030s. The proposal involves limiting train speeds to 186mph (300km/h), a significant decrease from the initially planned 224mph. Potentially billions of pounds in savings could be achieved through this adjustment, which would bring the project more in line with typical European high-speed rail standards. Currently, most UK trains operate at a maximum speed of 125mph, while HS1 trains serving Kent and the Channel tunnel reach up to 186mph. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has commissioned HS2 Ltd to report back on the potential savings from slower trains before the summer recess. This development follows a review by HS2's new CEO, Mark Wild, who has been working to regain control of the project's costs and delays. Alexander acknowledged the challenges facing the project, stating that previous plans significantly underestimated the work required. Despite these challenges, she praised Wild's leadership and noted that HS2 is now making progress, having completed the excavation of all 23 miles of deep tunnels needed for the initial stage of the railway. The project's overall budget is expected to be reassessed and restated in 2026 prices, with predictions that it will exceed £100bn due to soaring inflation and rising labour and steel costs. As of now, the total expenditure stands at £46.2bn at current prices. Government sources suggest that the original design for the world's fastest railway was “gold-plated” and “needlessly overspecced”, contributing to the cost overruns. Wild emphasized that speed was never the primary objective, and the railway's focus should be on delivering better journeys, increased network capacity, and economic growth.