Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Easter bunny has been a staple in many films, often depicted as cute and harmless, but sometimes also menacing and deadly. The Guardian has ranked Easter bunny movies, providing a list of 20 films that showcase the versatility of the Easter bunny character. The list includes Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) at number one, a film that combines live-action and animation, featuring a character with characteristics of many cartoon critters. Other notable mentions include Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005) at number three, a stop-motion animated film by Aardman, and Watership Down (1978) at number two, an animated adaptation of Richard Adams's novel. The list also features films like Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), which includes a scene with the holy hand grenade of Antioch, and Donnie Darko (2001), which features a sinister figure in a metal-faced bunny suit. Other films, such as No Surrender (1985), Fatal Attraction (1987), and The Favourite (2018), also make the list. The ranking showcases a wide range of Easter bunny depictions, from cute and harmless to menacing and deadly, demonstrating the versatility of the character in cinema.

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.”

The global super-rich may have as much as $3.55 trillion hidden away from tax authorities, according to estimates by Oxfam. This staggering amount is more than 3% of global GDP and is likely to be owned by the richest 0.1% of households.Oxfam's latest analysis reveals that total wealth held offshore has increased significantly to $13.25 trillion in 2023. While the share of secretive holdings hidden from tax authorities has fallen since the introduction of a new system of automatic information exchange between jurisdictions in 2016, Oxfam estimates that a substantial amount remains shielded from tax.The charity's lead on tax, Christian Hallum, emphasized that this isn't just about clever accounting, but about power and impunity. When millionaires and billionaires stash trillions of dollars in offshore tax havens, they place themselves above the obligations that bind the rest of society.Oxfam is part of a global campaign to mobilize calls for a global progressive wealth tax, including through negotiations at the UN on a framework for tax cooperation. The charity is also calling for countries in the global south to be included in the Common Reporting Standard – the system that allows for information exchange between jurisdictions.In the UK, Oxfam is urging Labour to implement a wealth tax, with the Green leader in England and Wales, Zack Polanski, suggesting a tax levied annually at a rate of 1% on assets worth more than £10m, and 2% above £100m. The Green party claims this policy would raise about £15 billion a year.

Ministers are rewriting planning rules to make it easier to approve intensive livestock farms, despite ongoing concerns about water pollution, air quality and local opposition.Freedom of Information documents obtained by the Guardian reveal that proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) have been discussed in response to lobbying by the country’s leading chicken producers for at least two years.The British Poultry Council (BPC) told farming minister Angela Eagle last autumn that “access to more growing space is the number one priority for the poultry meat sector.”In a submission to the government’s farm profitability review, the BPC argued that the need for a solution—whether through planning reform or land‑use policy—“dwarfs all other issues currently facing us.”Ahead of a January round‑table with Eagle, the BPC urged the government to “develop national planning direction and oversight for food production … to safeguard the UK’s long‑term food security.”Eagle responded that the government has “announced proposals to reform the planning system to more quickly unlock food and farming infrastructure,” emphasizing that “planning should enable ambition, not stifle it.”Her briefing notes directly linked the proposed changes to industry lobbying, describing planning reform as one of the sector’s “biggest asks” and noting that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working to “find solutions to planning barriers to poultry sheds and other infrastructure necessary for food production.”The draft NPPF includes several measures that could ease approval of new intensive livestock developments: a higher threshold for refusing applications on environmental grounds, reduced scope for local authorities to adopt tougher rules, greater weight given to “domestic food production,” and a new emphasis on “better accommodation for livestock.”The industry says it needs extra space to house chickens because of voluntary commitments to lower stocking density. Critics point out that these welfare commitments are not legally binding and that planning conditions do not guarantee long‑term compliance. Recent withdrawals by restaurant chains from the Better Chicken Commitment underscore the controversy.Richard Griffiths, chief executive of the BPC, said the reforms are needed to accommodate welfare improvements rather than to expand production, noting a voluntary reduction in stocking density from 38 kg to 30 kg per square metre.Griffiths warned that failing to support domestic production could increase imports, and the BPC has called for food production to be classified as “critical national infrastructure.”Prof. Paul Behrens of the University of Oxford countered that the food‑security case for intensive poultry is “illusory” because the sector depends on imported feed and vitamins and is vulnerable to disease outbreaks such as avian flu.Opposition to poultry megafarms is organised, with local residents raising concerns over water pollution, air quality and the climate crisis. The Environment Agency estimates agriculture accounts for roughly 70 % of nitrate and 25‑30 % of phosphorus pollution in UK waterways, and runoff from intensive poultry units contributes to that burden.Last year, Norfolk councillors rejected Cranswick’s plan for a 900,000‑bird chicken farm after the company failed to demonstrate that the development would not cause “significant adverse effects on protected sites.”The BPC has also urged early intervention by the Planning Inspectorate to minimise delays, arguing that centralised oversight would bring objectivity to a system where “naysayers, particularly via social media, have a disproportionate sway in the decision‑making process.”Campaign group Communities Against Factory Farming warned that the proposed regime “risks embedding decades of industrial livestock land use in rural and green‑belt locations without adequate scrutiny,” giving “substantial weight” to the economic benefits of intensification.A government spokesperson rejected claims that the NPPF proposals are driven by lobbying, stating that they have been carefully considered to balance sector support with broader priorities such as food security and environmental protection.

Israel’s parliament has approved a law that authorises the death penalty solely for Palestinians convicted in West Bank military courts for what the courts define as "terrorism" killings of Israelis. The measure was greeted with celebration by far‑right politicians, yet it has drawn swift rebuke from the United Nations human‑rights chief, who warned it could constitute a war crime, and from a broad coalition of international observers.Israeli rights organisations argue that the law is the latest manifestation of an apartheid‑style legal framework that systematically privileges Jewish citizens while imposing severe penalties on Palestinians. They contend that such legislation entrenches a system of codified discrimination that has evolved since the state’s founding.Under the new rule, military tribunals in the occupied West Bank – which exclusively try Palestinians – will, by default, impose the death sentence on anyone found guilty of an unlawful killing of Israelis classified as terrorism. In contrast, Israeli citizens charged with comparable offences in the same territory are tried in civilian courts, where the death penalty is not applied.Statistics underscore the disparity: conviction rates for Palestinians in military courts hover at an astonishing 99.74%, whereas Israelis tried for crimes committed in the West Bank have a conviction rate of roughly 3% between 2005 and 2024. These figures highlight the stark imbalance in judicial outcomes.Arab‑Israeli lawmaker Aida Touma‑Suleiman of the Hadash party expressed her dismay, leaving the parliamentary chamber after the vote and stating she anticipated “scenes of happiness” from far‑right figures but was “painful” to see the public echo the same sentiment.The law follows a series of statutes that critics say have progressively eroded Palestinian rights, including the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and the 2018 Nation‑State Law, which enshrines Jewish supremacy in identity, settlement policy, and constitutional hierarchy while marginalising Arabic.Human‑rights advocate Yair Dvir of B’Tselem described Israel as an “apartheid regime,” noting that a “whole set of laws” differentiate between Jews and Palestinians and that the death‑penalty legislation is less an outlier than a logical extension of existing policies that deny Palestinians the right to life.Analysts argue that the dehumanisation of Palestinians has deepened to the point where capital punishment can be enacted with minimal dissent and even public celebration by parliamentarians.Physician‑rights activist Tirza Leibowitz of Physicians for Human Rights – Israel warned that the law exemplifies a broader pattern of violations, ranging from inhumane prison conditions to a legal system that often refuses to investigate crimes against Palestinians or actively shields abusive practices.She cited the unresolved deaths of more than 100 Palestinians in the West Bank since the October 2023 Gaza conflict, highlighting the case of 17‑year‑old Walid Ahmad, whose death by starvation in custody was ruled “undeterminable” by an Israeli judge, as evidence of the low value placed on Palestinian lives.Leibowitz also pointed to the recent dropping of charges against soldiers accused of sexual abuse at Sde Temain prison, noting that far‑right protesters, including lawmakers, rallied in support of the accused, further normalising systemic abuse.Touma‑Suleiman linked the new law to the 2018 Nation‑State legislation, recalling a confrontation with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which he dismissed her criticism, insisting Israel remains “the Middle East’s only democracy.” She later observed that far‑right leader Itamar Ben‑Gvir has openly chanted “Death to Arabs,” rebranding it as “Death to terrorists,” thereby blurring the line between extremist rhetoric and state policy.Overall, the death‑penalty law is being portrayed by critics as a stark illustration of an entrenched apartheid system, raising serious questions about Israel’s adherence to international legal standards and the future of Palestinian rights under occupation.

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.

Thomas Tuchel admitted with a wry smile that trying to assemble a cohesive side in just three days for the Uruguay friendly was "ridiculous," underscoring the chaotic nature of England’s recent international window. The match at Wembley ended in a 1‑1 draw with Uruguay, followed three days later by a 1‑0 loss to Japan. Tuchel framed these results as preferable to a harsher narrative, but the underlying issues were far more complex. Tuchel’s strategy hinged on a 24‑man squad for Uruguay, with the intention of auditioning fringe players, before bolstering the team with eleven established internationals for the Japan game. However, a cascade of injuries crippled his plans: John Stones withdrew with a fitness problem, Reece James was sidelined, Jude Bellingham arrived unfit, and later Declan Rice, Bukayo Saka, Jordan Henderson and Harry Kane all pulled out. These absences forced Tuchel to experiment with formations – a 4‑2‑4 against Japan featuring twin No 10s Cole Palmer and Phil Foden, and a hurriedly assembled setup against Uruguay after only four training sessions in three days. The result was a lackluster performance, with moments of technical skill but no decisive attacking thrust. Tuchel emphasized the concept of load management, noting the heavy minutes his players logged during a grueling club season. He argued that the friendlies allowed a lighter touch, yet the fatigue was evident, especially in the Japan match where he observed “clear signs of tiredness.” Despite the setbacks, Tuchel took responsibility for the tactical choices, stating, “I am responsible for changing the structure because I wanted to give us more security.” He also highlighted that the squad’s resilience in September, October and November will be crucial as they head toward the World Cup. Looking forward, Tuchel stressed that avoiding over‑exertion now could pay dividends in the summer, insisting, “We will not start doubting. We will not let go of our dream.” The manager’s candid assessment suggests a cautious approach to player workload as England prepares for the next competitive phase.

Islamabad – Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar will travel to Beijing, reaffirming the “all‑weather strategic cooperative partnership” between the two nations, according to the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs.The visit follows a high‑profile quadrilateral meeting in Islamabad that brought together foreign ministers from Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all aiming to coax the United States and Iran back to the negotiating table amid a war that has already spiked global energy prices.Despite a recent hairline shoulder fracture, Dar pressed on with the trip, signalling the urgency of Pakistan’s diplomatic push. In a March 27 call, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi praised Islamabad’s “untiring efforts to cool down the situation,” a sentiment echoed by spokesperson Mao Ning, who said China is ready to “enhance communication… for a cease‑fire and peace in the region.”Analysts argue the mission is less about collecting praise and more about testing whether Beijing will move from rhetoric to concrete action in the US‑Iran mediation. The central question: can China become an active partner rather than a silent observer?Former Wilson Center fellow Baqir Sajjad Syed explains that Dar will brief Chinese leaders on the recent Islamabad quadrilateral and seek to turn five draft principles – immediate ceasefire, resumption of talks, civilian protection, maritime security, and UN Charter compliance – into a binding framework.Pakistani scholars view the outreach as classic intermediary behaviour: Pakistan leverages China’s permanent‑member status to stay relevant, while China, unlike the United States, mainly engages with Gulf states and Tehran.Iran specialist Vali Nasr suggested Tehran may be looking for a Chinese “guarantor” for any US‑Iran deal, a premise disputed by professor Ishtiaq Ahmad, who calls the expectation “analytically weak” given China’s reluctance to back a declining regime.The strategic stakes are stark. The Strait of Hormuz moves roughly 20 % of global oil. Kpler data show China imported about 1.38 million barrels per day of Iranian crude in 2025 – roughly 12 % of its total oil imports. The IEA estimates 15 million barrels per day passed through the strait in 2025, with China and India accounting for 44 % of that flow.China‑Iran trade hit about $41.2 billion in 2025, and a 2021 25‑year strategic cooperation pact promised up to $400 billion in Chinese investment for discounted Iranian oil, much of which remains unrealised due to U.S. sanctions.Syed describes China’s motivations as “clear and self‑interested”: protecting energy security, safeguarding Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and China‑Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) projects, and bolstering its image as a global peace broker. A prolonged war would hurt China’s economy through higher oil prices and disrupted trade routes.While Beijing is unlikely to deploy military forces, it may employ diplomatic tools – public endorsements, joint statements, and economic levers – to push for a cease‑fire. Its pragmatic stance means it will weigh the benefits of deeper involvement against the risk of being drawn into a conflict.The diplomatic backdrop includes a postponed Trump visit to Beijing and a slated summit for mid‑May, as well as a future Xi‑to‑U.S. trip, which observers say could signal a broader alignment between the two great powers.Meanwhile, the United States continues to amass forces in the Gulf, with thousands of Marines and Army troops positioned for possible ground operations, underscoring the volatility that Pakistan and China are trying to mitigate.In sum, Dar’s Beijing mission tests whether China will remain a passive supporter or become an active broker in a war that threatens global energy markets and regional stability.

Washington state has taken a historic step towards a more progressive tax system by passing a 9.9% income tax on millionaires. The tax, which will take effect in 2028, targets the state's ultra-wealthy residents and aims to address the state's regressive tax system.The tax was championed by activists and lawmakers, including Noel Frame, who has been pushing for a wealth tax for over 15 years. Frame's efforts were previously met with resistance from the tech industry, particularly Microsoft and Amazon, which are headquartered in the state.The new tax is seen as a significant departure from the state's previous stance on taxation. Washington state has long been known for its lack of an income tax, instead relying on sales, business, and property taxes. However, this system has been criticized for being regressive, with the state's poorest residents paying a larger share of their income in taxes.The millionaire tax is expected to bring in much-needed revenue for public services, including public schooling and healthcare. The state's budget gap has been growing, and lawmakers have been struggling to find ways to balance the books.The tax is also seen as part of a national movement towards more progressive taxation. Several other states, including California, Colorado, Michigan, and New York, are considering wealth taxes. The movement is driven in part by growing public awareness of the wealth gap and the need for more equitable taxation.Despite the potential for the tax to drive away wealthy individuals and businesses, research suggests that taxation is not a major factor in decisions to move to a different state. Instead, factors such as work opportunities, family, and lifestyle choices play a much larger role.The tax is expected to face legal challenges and potential opposition from opponents who argue that it will harm the state's economy. However, supporters of the tax argue that it is a necessary step towards creating a more equitable tax system and providing more revenue for public services.