Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced on Wednesday that it has granted expedited approval to Eli Lilly’s oral weight‑loss medication, orforglipron—marketed under the brand name Foundayo. This makes Foundayo the second GLP‑1 pill to reach U.S. consumers, following Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy tablet approved in December. Orforglipron works by mimicking a natural hormone that regulates appetite and satiety, offering a non‑injectable alternative to existing GLP‑1 injectables. David A. Ricks, Eli Lilly’s chair and CEO, highlighted that fewer than one in ten eligible patients are currently using GLP‑1 therapies, citing barriers such as cost, stigma, and perceived complexity. Unlike Wegovy, which must be taken on an empty stomach each morning, Foundayo can be taken anytime of day regardless of meals, simplifying dosing schedules. Patients will start on a low dose that is gradually increased to mitigate side‑effects. Pricing is projected at $149 per month for the initial dose, with higher‑strength formulations potentially reaching $349 monthly. While private‑insurance coverage remains uncertain, a Trump‑administration proposal could allow Medicare to cover certain patients as early as this summer, with copayments as low as $50 per month. Distribution will commence on Monday through LillyDirect’s direct‑to‑consumer channel, with broader availability in pharmacies and telehealth platforms expected shortly thereafter. The convenience of a once‑daily pill is anticipated to improve adherence, especially for individuals who avoid injectables due to needle aversion or rigid dosing requirements. The approval follows a fast‑track submission submitted only months ago, positioning Foundayo to enter the market roughly three months after Wegovy. This rapid rollout is set to intensify competition in the burgeoning GLP‑1 space, where new agents are continually emerging with claims of better efficacy and lower costs.

Police in Wuhan reported a sudden "system malfunction" that immobilised several autonomous robotaxis operated by Baidu’s Apollo Go service, leaving passengers stuck on an elevated highway for up to an hour and a half.Local authorities said they received a flood of calls on Tuesday night from riders whose vehicles froze in the middle of the road. A police statement confirmed that “multiple Apollo Go cars stopped in the middle of the road, unable to move,” and preliminary investigations point to a technical failure.Baidu maintains a fleet of more than 500 driverless cars in Wuhan, though the exact number affected was not disclosed. One commuter shared a 90‑minute ordeal on the Chinese platform RedNote, describing how the vehicle stalled at 9 p.m. on an overpass, surrounded by dump trucks, while customer‑service lines remained unanswered.The rider eventually was rescued after the order was cancelled at 10:30 p.m., but criticized Apollo Go’s support team for offering “useless platitudes” instead of concrete solutions. Social‑media users also posted videos captioned “Apollo Go, are you paralysed?” showing futile attempts to contact the company via the in‑car tablet.This is not Baidu’s first controversy. In December, authorities in Zhuzhou halted robotaxi operations after a Baidu‑manufactured autonomous vehicle struck two pedestrians, sending them to intensive care.Despite these setbacks, Baidu’s autonomous‑mobility arm continues to grow. Company filings reveal that Apollo Go delivered 3.4 million driverless rides in the fourth quarter of 2025, a jump of over 200 % compared with the same period in 2024. The firm is also pursuing international expansion, having announced partnership deals with rideshare giants Lyft and Uber to deploy its vehicles on their platforms.When approached for comment, Baidu did not respond, according to Reuters.Additional reporting by Yu‑chen Li

The recent waiving of Jaden Ivey by the Chicago Bulls following his anti-LGBTQ+ and religiously charged comments on social media was presented as a response to 'conduct detrimental to the team.' However, this situation exposes a more nuanced reality about player expendability and the league's priorities.On the surface, it appears to be a straightforward case of a player making controversial statements and facing consequences. Yet, there's an alternative scenario where Ivey, with the help of his publicist, issues a swift apology, participates in inclusion education, and possibly pays a fine or makes a donation. In this scenario, he could have potentially continued his career in the NBA, a league that has been pro-LGBTQ+ for over a decade.Ivey's comments revealed his beliefs, and the subsequent actions of the Bulls shed light on how NBA teams decide which voices to protect and which to discard. The situation raises questions about the league's commitment to inclusion and how it handles controversial player behavior.As a former NFL player, the author notes that locker room discussions often avoid sensitive topics like queer acceptance and religious beliefs. However, when such topics are broached, they usually involve players sharing how their faith has positively impacted their lives. The author suggests that Ivey's comments were not surprising and might have been shared by some of his teammates.The key difference in Ivey's case was that his comments were made outside the locker room, making them public and subject to scrutiny. The author recalls instances of ignorant comments in locker rooms but notes that peer conversations and diverse perspectives can lead to growth and learning.The swift release of Ivey was likely due to his lack of star power and a career marked by injuries and unremarkable performances. In contrast, superstars like Anthony Edwards, Rajon Rondo, and the late Kobe Bryant faced fewer consequences for similar behavior, with the league giving them time to apologize and make amends.The NBA's response to Ivey's comments does not necessarily indicate a solution to homophobia in locker rooms. Instead, it shows that teams know how to react when a player's behavior becomes visible and when that player is expendable enough to be made an example of. The culture within locker rooms won't shift simply because one voice is removed, especially when the underlying beliefs are not isolated.Ultimately, the NBA manages tensions rather than eliminating them. The gap between public statements and private actions will continue to exist, and incidents like Ivey's will keep surfacing in new ways until this gap closes.

TV veteran Michael Patrick King has had a storied career, writing, directing, and producing shows like Murphy Brown, Will & Grace, and 2 Broke Girls. He's best known for his work on the Sex and the City franchise, serving as showrunner and writing and directing its two films.King's latest project is the return of his critically acclaimed show The Comeback, which first aired in 2005. The series, co-created and co-written with Lisa Kudrow, follows the story of Valerie Cherish, a sitcom star trying to return to stardom through reality TV. After a successful second season in 2014, fans have been clamoring for a third installment.The new season of The Comeback begins in the midst of a Hollywood strike, with Valerie navigating an industry in distress. The show tackles timely topics, including the rise of AI in television. King and Kudrow conducted extensive research on AI, consulting with experts to create a realistic portrayal.King also reflects on And Just Like That, the Sex and the City revival, which ended its three-season run last year. Despite initial backlash, King believes the series will age well and that its portrayal of older women challenging societal norms is a significant step forward.Throughout his career, King has demonstrated a willingness to take risks and push boundaries. As he says, 'We got cancelled and we're still here – 21 years later.'

Jermain Defoe has been appointed as the new manager of Woking FC, a club that has never made it to the Football League in its 139-year history. On his first day, Defoe expressed his gratitude for the opportunity, stating, “It’s been a long time coming.” He emphasized the importance of 'earning his stripes' as a manager, a lesson he learned from his mother.Defoe, who had a 23-year playing career and won 57 England caps, has previously worked with Steven Gerrard at Rangers and spent time in the Tottenham academy. He turned down his former team Tottenham to take over at Woking, joking about the opportunity.The new Woking manager is only the fifth black manager or head coach working in English football’s top five divisions. “I’d like to think going forward that other black managers will get [opportunities], too,” he said, highlighting the challenges faced by black managers in the sport.Defoe's assistant, Paul Bracewell, brings vast experience to the team, having worked with Defoe at Sunderland and Tottenham. The target for next season is promotion, and Defoe plans to draw on the experience of former managers like Sam Allardyce and Harry Redknapp.Reflecting on his journey, Defoe said, “My mum knows that this is something that I’ve waited a long time for so she has said I have to make sure that I enjoy it.” He emphasized the importance of having supportive influences in his life, particularly his mother, who has been a constant source of guidance throughout his career.

Alisha Joyce stepped back onto the rugby field in March, just 123 days after delivering her son, and a week later secured a place in Wales’ squad for the upcoming Women’s Six Nations. The 28‑year‑old described the selection as a surprise, but welcomed the chance to inspire the next generation of players.Joyce is the first Welsh international to tap into the new performance maternity programme, a policy designed to support athletes through pregnancy and return to elite competition. She shares her newborn, Ralphie, with her wife and teammate Jasmine Joyce, and has logged only 30 minutes of senior rugby since her comeback, coming off the bench for Brython Thunder.Wales head coach Sean Lynn delivered the call‑up unexpectedly. Joyce said she hopes to contribute her experience to a squad that includes nine uncapped players, acknowledging her new role as one of the senior members and a mentor for younger teammates.Having missed last year’s Six Nations and World Cup due to pregnancy, Joyce now brings her son to the training camp, describing the first four‑and‑a‑half months of parenthood as “incredible” and a source of motivation.Sleep deprivation posed a major challenge, especially given the importance of recovery in elite sport. Joyce noted that after the initial three months of erratic nights, Ralphie’s routine has settled, allowing her to focus more on training and performance.She cited teammate Abbie Ward—the first England player to have a baby while under a professional contract—as a key influence in deciding to continue her career after motherhood. Joyce reflected on the broader dilemma many athletes face: balancing the desire for a family with the timing of major tournaments and potential Lions selection.Both Joyce and Jasmine underwent IVF, a process that required careful planning and preparation. Joyce called the decision to pursue parenthood “one of the best” they’ve made, emphasizing how quickly life can change when a child is involved.Looking ahead, Joyce aims to earn playing time in the Six Nations, which kicks off against Scotland on 11 April, and has set her sights on the inaugural women’s British & Irish Lions tour in 2027. She hopes her journey shows young girls that they can excel in sport while being mothers, and she remains determined to return to top form.

Palantir’s claim that opposition to its NHS contract is driven by ideology was rebuked by Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs Parliament’s science, innovation and technology select committee. Onwurah said it is appropriate for ministers to explore a break‑clause option in the deal, underscoring the seriousness of the concerns raised. Louis Mosley, Palantir’s UK executive vice‑chair, had urged the government not to succumb to “ideologically motivated campaigners” as officials weighed a way out of a £330 million contract to deliver the Federated Data Platform (FDP) for NHS England. Ministers have now asked for advice on triggering the contract’s break clause amid growing scrutiny of Palantir’s expanding role in the public sector. The FDP is an AI‑enabled platform designed to integrate disparate health information across the NHS. Palantir already holds contracts with the Ministry of Defence, several police forces and the UK’s financial watchdog, the FCA. Onwurah’s cross‑party committee is set to publish its report in the coming weeks, covering the digital reorganisation of government services and the role of AI after a series of hearings that included experts, NHS leaders and representatives from companies such as Palantir. She identified three core issues: the manner in which the contract was awarded, the handling of patient data and the resulting trust deficit within the NHS, and the involvement of Peter Mandelson through his firm Global Counsel. “These are not fringe ideological concerns,” Onwurah told the Guardian. “They relate to contract transparency, vendor lock‑in, value for money and data security – matters that should concern everyone pushing the NHS towards digital transformation.” She added that the NHS’s post‑COVID fatigue and austerity‑driven burnout make any additional trust‑related resentment a significant barrier to progress. Onwurah noted that Palantir secured the contract after providing services to the NHS at a nominal cost – a tactic often used by large tech firms to position themselves as the most attractive government supplier. “It is right for the government to explore all options, including breaking the contract, given ongoing concerns about FDP uptake while Palantir remains at the helm,” she said. Liberal Democrat MP Martin Wrigley, also on the committee, urged the government to commission a new consortium of UK‑based tech experts to build a home‑grown NHS platform. During a previous committee appearance, Mosley accused British doctors of placing “ideology over patient interest” after they challenged the data‑processing contract. Speaking to the Times, Mosley warned that removing Palantir could jeopardise patient care and stall solutions to the NHS’s biggest challenges, arguing that the campaign against the firm would do more harm than good.

The UK's declining birthrate has been a growing concern in recent years, with long-term fiscal pressures expected to arise from supporting an ageing population. A new report by the Resolution Foundation thinktank, titled 'Bye Bye Baby', suggests that politicians should prioritize tackling housing affordability to encourage young people to have more children.The report highlights a significant shift in the proportion of women who are not yet mothers by age 30, rising from 48% for those born in the late 1980s to 58% for those born in the early 1990s. This trend is most pronounced among non-graduate women aged 25-29, with more than half (54%) having no children by 2023, up from one in three in 2011.The analysis attributes this shift to falling partnership rates and a major shift away from home ownership towards costly private renting and living with parents, making it harder for young people to start a family. The share of non-graduates in their late 20s in private rented accommodation has doubled to 33% in 2023-24, while home ownership has halved over the same period.The thinktank's research suggests that financial constraints play a significant role in young people's decisions to have children. Among 32-year-olds who are not yet parents, twice the proportion of those in the lowest quarter of earners said they intended to remain permanently childless, compared with those in the top quarter of earners.Politicians have proposed various policies to encourage young people to have children, including expanding free childcare and introducing married tax allowances. However, the Resolution Foundation's research suggests that focusing on housing struggles may be a more successful approach.“Deciding whether to have children is a deeply personal choice, but it’s clear that financial constraints are at play too,” said Charlie McCurdy, senior economist at the thinktank. “Policymakers should look to address the financial barriers that are hindering young people’s ability to start a family – such as increasing housing affordability and opportunities to get on the housing ladder – to make parenthood more achievable for those who want it.”

America faces an unprecedented concentration of wealth: the richest 1% now control more assets than the bottom 93% of households, and a single individual, Elon Musk, with a net worth of $805 billion, holds more wealth than the lower‑half of the population combined.Recent tax policies have amplified this gap. In the year following the largest tax cut in U.S. history, 938 billionaires added $1.5 trillion to their fortunes, while President Trump and his family saw a modest increase of $4 billion. Four Wall Street giants—BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity and State Street—own stakes in more than 95 % of publicly traded companies, cementing corporate dominance across the economy.Political influence mirrors financial power: by the 2026 midterms, just 50 billionaires had poured over $433 million into campaign activities, shaping policy to protect their interests.Meanwhile, the average American worker is earning roughly $20 per week less than in 1973 after inflation adjustment, despite decades of productivity gains. The Rand Corporation estimates that $79 trillion has shifted from the bottom 90 % to the top 1 % over the past half‑century.Economic hardship is widespread: 60 % of households live paycheck to paycheck, nearly half of older workers lack retirement savings, and over 20 % of seniors survive on less than $15,000 annually. Health‑care insecurity affects 85 million Americans, with more than 500,000 filing for bankruptcy each year due to medical debt.At the heart of the problem is a tax code engineered by the affluent. Billionaires now pay lower effective rates than typical workers. For example, Musk’s tax rate sits below 3.3 % compared with an 8.4 % rate for a truck driver; Jeff Bezos paid under 1 % versus 8.7 % for a firefighter; Michael Bloomberg’s rate was 1.3 % against 13.3 % for a registered nurse; and Warren Buffett’s rate was a mere 0.1 % while a schoolteacher paid nearly 10 %.Corporate tax avoidance compounds the issue. After a $900 billion corporate tax break, major firms such as Tesla, SpaceX, Palantir, Ticketmaster and the parent of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC reported zero federal income tax despite generating over $17 billion in profit.Public sentiment is shifting. In California, voters favor a billionaire tax by a two‑to‑one margin, and in New York City, 62 % back a 2 % surtax on the ultra‑wealthy. Nationwide, more than six in ten Americans believe the wealthy and large corporations pay too little.In response, Senator Sanders introduced legislation to impose a 5 % wealth tax on the 938 billionaires whose combined net worth exceeds $8.2 trillion. Over a decade, the measure would generate roughly $4.4 trillion.The first‑year rollout would deliver a $3,000 direct payment to every household earning $150,000 or less—equating to $12,000 for a typical family of four. Additional provisions include constructing 7 million affordable housing units, expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing, providing universal childcare, raising the minimum teacher salary to $60,000, and guaranteeing Medicaid‑funded home health care for seniors and people with disabilities.Crucially, the plan would reverse recent health‑care cuts that stripped coverage from 15 million Americans, ensuring no additional loss of insurance.Even if the tax were applied retroactively, the impact on the ultra‑rich would be modest relative to their fortunes: Elon Musk would owe an extra $42 billion, Mark Zuckerberg an additional $11 billion, and Jeff Bezos another $11 billion—figures that would barely dent their net worths.As Justice Louis Brandeis warned in 1933, “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Senator Sanders argues the choice is clear: a democratic economy that serves the many, not a plutocratic system that serves the 1 %.The wealthiest Americans must begin contributing their fair share.