Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The LeadWhile Spirit Airlines disappeared from the aviation landscape amid high fuel prices, another prominent name is taking flight: President Donald J. Trump. Palm Beach International Airport is being rebranded in a deal that opens new revenue streams for the Trump family, despite the agreement prohibiting direct financial compensation from airport sales.The Trump Brand Expansion at Palm Beach InternationalThe newly-branded President Donald J Trump international airport, located less than five miles from Mar-a-Lago, joins a growing list of Trump-branded entities including passports, street signs, national parks passes, performing arts centers, and golden immigration visas. This rebranding represents the latest in Trump's pursuit of personal branding and monetization opportunities.The agreement between Palm Beach County and DTTM Operations LLC, Trump's Delaware-based company that oversees licensing, marketing and intellectual property, grants the Trump Organization significant control over how the airport's name is used. Under the leadership of Donald Trump Jr., the company has secured numerous rights that analysts describe as unusual for such a contract.The Financial Mechanics of the Trump Airport DealWhile the agreement prohibits "direct financial compensation" from goods sold at the airport, Trump retains multiple revenue-generating opportunities. He gets to choose which vendors will manufacture and supply branded merchandise sold at the airport. The non-exclusive agreement allows the Trump Organization to profit from any merchandise sold away from the airport, including through Trump's online store that already offers a wide array of Trump-themed products.Trump can also monetize the airport's new name in any way he sees fit and can license the trademark to any third party of his choosing. Additionally, he has final approval over how his name, image and likeness are portrayed at the airport, effectively limiting the county's editorial discretion to ensure portrayals align with his personal preferences.Political Implications and Local ResistanceThe rebranding process began in February when Trump's lawyers filed trademark applications for the new airport name, parallel to Florida Republican lawmakers advancing legislation to mandate completion of the transformation by July 1. Opponents condemned what they saw as a "misguided" act of fealty to Trump by Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, and criticized the speed at which the name change was being implemented without consulting residents.Decisions about naming major infrastructure should wait until after an honoree's service has concluded and should include meaningful input from local residents, according to Lois Frankel, the Democratic US congresswoman whose district covers much of Palm Beach County. The agreement was approved by the Palm Beach County Commission in a narrow 4-3 vote, with the deciding vote cast by Democratic member Maria Sachs after a contentious debate.Future Outlook for Trump's Brand EmpireAnalysts predict Trump is likely to net millions from this unorthodox legal arrangement. The Trump Organization's options are virtually limitless, with the ability to direct business to favored companies and potentially curry favor through strategic licensing agreements. This airport deal follows a pattern of Trump monetizing his name and image across various sectors.While the airport will be known as "President Donald J Trump International Airport," its three-letter airport code will remain PBI unless or until additional legislation passes to change it. The rebranding represents both a significant branding victory for Trump and a potentially lucrative revenue stream for his family business, continuing a trend of personal branding that has become increasingly central to Trump's post-presidential business strategy.

The Premise of Legends Imagine The A-Team but instead of a band of wrongfully convicted US army commandos who become soldiers of fortune, it's a group of dissatisfied baggage searchers and VAT investigators who have taken their ties off. This is the premise of Legends, a six-part thriller by Neil Forsyth based on the true story of a group of ordinary men and women recruited from the rank and file of Her Majesty's Customs in the early 90s, given three weeks' training and sent undercover to infiltrate and bring down two massive drug cartels that were filling Britain's streets with heroin. The Main Characters and Plot Steve Coogan stars as former undercover police officer Don Clarke. He puts the team together for the home secretary and HMC's director of investigations Angus Blake. The team includes Guy, a 'lone wolf' operator played by Tom Burke; Kate, a hardbitten, hotheaded Essex native played by Hayley Squires; Bailey, a more thoughtful, tentative character played by Aml Ameen; and Erin, a backroom data hound extraordinaire played by Jasmine Blackborow. The Challenge of Bringing the Story to Life The energy spent keeping things serious prevents the series catching fire. But it remains a brilliant story, here well told. The article concludes that Forsyth mostly, if sometimes very, very narrowly avoids falling into the ever yawning trap that a story about customs officers becoming the A-Team inevitably faces, which is the potential for bathos, if not outright risibility. Where to Watch Legends is on Netflix.

Marco Rubio announced on Tuesday that Operation Epic Fury – the joint U.S.-Israel campaign launched on 28 February – has met its objectives and is now over, signalling a shift toward a negotiated settlement. At the same time, President Donald Trump confirmed that the naval escort effort known as Project Freedom, intended to keep commercial vessels moving through the Strait of Hormuz, has been temporarily paused pending progress in talks with Tehran.The Official Declaration: Rubio Announces End of Operation Epic FuryIn a White House briefing, Rubio stated, “The Operation Epic Fury is concluded. We achieved the objectives of that operation,” and added that the administration now prefers “the path of peace.” He referenced ongoing back‑channel talks facilitated by Pakistan and noted that both sides have submitted fresh proposals since the last round in Islamabad.Contrasting Signals: Trump’s Pause on Project FreedomTrump told reporters that Project Freedom was halted “based on the request of Pakistan and other countries” and because “great progress has been made toward a complete and final agreement” with Iran. The operation, launched on 4 May, was designed to escort merchant ships through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint that carries roughly 20 % of the world’s oil and LNG shipments.Key Numbers and Timelines28 Feb 2026 – Operation Epic Fury begins.4 May 2026 – Project Freedom launched.5 May 2026 – US imposes naval blockade on Iranian ports.6 May 2026 – Rubio declares Epic Fury concluded; Trump pauses Project Freedom.~20 % – Share of global oil/LNG transiting the Strait of Hormuz.Geopolitical Ripple Effects Across the Gulf and Global Energy MarketsThe abrupt policy shift has sparked mixed reactions. Analysts at the Royal United Services Institute warn that the pause reflects “frantic diplomatic back‑channeling” aimed at extracting deeper nuclear concessions from Tehran. Meanwhile, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps has threatened to fire on any ship entering the strait without permission, raising concerns about a renewed blockade that could further depress Iranian oil revenues and destabilise regional markets.UAE officials have already accused Iran of striking the Fujairah port, intensifying fears of a broader confrontation that could involve additional Gulf states.Scenarios for the Next Phase of US‑Iran DiplomacyExperts outline three likely pathways:Negotiated Settlement: Continued pauses in military operations create space for a comprehensive nuclear deal, potentially lifting sanctions and ending the blockade.Limited Escalation: If talks stall, the U.S. may resume Project Freedom at a higher intensity, while Iran could increase IRGC naval activity.Stalemate: Both sides maintain a fragile cease‑fire, using diplomatic rhetoric to manage domestic audiences without achieving a lasting resolution.Given the domestic pressure on both Washington and Tehran, the next few weeks will be critical in determining whether the war truly ends or merely enters a prolonged diplomatic limbo.

Strickland Captures Middleweight Title in Controversial Split DecisionSean Strickland reclaimed the UFC 185‑pound championship at UFC 328, edging out Khamzat Chimaev by a split decision (48‑47, 48‑47, 47‑48). The bout concluded without the pre‑fight threats spilling into the cage, but the surrounding drama set a new tone for UFC security protocols.Inside the Fight: Scorecards, Attendance, and Pre‑Fight TensionsThe judges’ cards read two for Strickland and one for Chimaev, reflecting a razor‑thin margin. The event drew a crowd of 17,783 fans at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. Leading up to the fight, Strickland’s rhetoric labeled Chimaev a “terrorist,” prompting heightened security at hotels and the arena.Numbers That Matter: Scorecard Margins, Crowd Size, and Career StatsFinal scorecards: 48‑47, 48‑47 (Strickland) / 48‑47 (Chimaev)Attendance: 17,783 spectatorsStrickland’s middleweight record: 2‑time champion, lost title once, now 2‑0 in title fightsChimaev’s streak: first loss in 16 professional boutsCareer wins for Strickland: 28 (including this bout)Broader Fallout: Security Measures, Ethnic Rhetoric, and UFC’s Brand ManagementUFC responded with “enhanced security” at hotels, public venues, and around the cage, citing the “loathsome” trash‑talk episode. The incident highlighted the league’s challenge in balancing promotional hype with responsible conduct, especially when ethnic and political references are involved. UFC CEO Dana White labeled the card a “1‑of‑1 event,” yet the controversy may pressure the organization to tighten fighter‑speech policies.What’s Next for the Middleweight Division and UFC’s Event StrategyAnalysts expect a rematch clause to be activated, given the split‑decision nature of the result. Meanwhile, UFC’s upcoming White‑House‑themed show on June 14 could serve as a platform to showcase a more controlled promotional approach. Strickland’s next opponent will likely be a top‑ranked contender, while Chimaev may seek a comeback against a lower‑tier fighter to rebuild momentum.

The Early Exit of a Champion Three years after leading the Denver Nuggets to the NBA championship, three-time MVP Nikola Jokić and his team faced a stunning first-round playoff exit at the hands of the Minnesota Timberwolves. The series concluded in six games, marking the first time in four years that Denver failed to advance past the first round of the postseason. Despite Jokić's impressive performance in the final game with 28 points, 10 assists, and nine rebounds, the Nuggets couldn't overcome the Timberwolves' defensive strategy and physical dominance. Defensive Breakdown and Team Struggles The series highlighted significant defensive issues for the Nuggets, particularly with four-time Defensive Player of the Year Rudy Gobert effectively neutralizing Jokić throughout the series. While Jokić found some rhythm in the final two games, his backcourt partner Jamal Murray struggled significantly, shooting just 4 for 17 from the floor with a team-worst minus-18 rating in the decisive Game 6. The Timberwolves exploited Denver's weaknesses, particularly in rebounding and points in the paint, where they dominated 64-40 and 50-33 respectively. Postseason Implications and Coaching Questions The early exit raises significant questions about the Nuggets' future as a championship contender in the increasingly competitive Western Conference. With Jokić eligible for a maximum contract extension this summer, his declaration of wanting to "be Nuggets forever" provides stability at the star level. However, coach David Adelman's future with the team comes into question after his first full season on the job. Jokić publicly supported his coach, stating "It's not his fault we couldn't rebound. It's not his fault we couldn't catch the ball very well," but the front office faces decisions about roster adjustments and coaching direction. Broader Playoff Picture and Upcoming Matchups The Timberwolves' advancement to the second round despite missing their top three guards due to injuries demonstrates the depth of their roster. They will face the San Antonio Spurs, who defeated the Portland Trail Blazers in five games. Meanwhile, other series saw dramatic developments, including the New York Knicks setting NBA records with their 140-89 victory over the Atlanta Hawks, and the Philadelphia 76ers forcing a Game 7 against the Boston Celtics after losing two games by 30+ points. These outcomes reshape the playoff landscape and create new storylines for the conference semifinals. Future Outlook for the Nuggets Looking ahead, the Nuggets face critical decisions to remain competitive. Jokić's commitment to the team provides a foundation, but roster adjustments around him will be necessary. The team must address rebounding issues, perimeter defense, and scoring consistency when facing athletic teams like Minnesota. With the Western Conference featuring multiple young, athletic teams developing around star players, Denver's front office must determine whether to maintain their current system or adapt to the evolving style of play that has made teams like the Timberwolves successful. The early exit may serve as a wake-up call for a franchise that has grown accustomed to deep playoff runs.

Supreme Court Decision Reshapes Voting Rights LandscapeThe United States Supreme Court has voided a key provision of a landmark civil rights law by ruling that the electoral map of Louisiana had been drawn up unconstitutionally to create two Black-majority districts. The decision represents a major reinterpretation of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 – in particular, its provision designed to protect minority voters from having their political power diluted.Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling is seen as a major win for Louisiana Republicans and President Donald Trump's administration and is expected to make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the 1965 law. It is unclear how much of that provision – Section 2 of the act – remains in force following this decision.The Louisiana Redistricting RulingThe court held that a map that created two Black-majority congressional districts in Louisiana was unconstitutional. The 6-3 ruling by justices blocks an electoral map that had given Louisiana a second Black-majority US congressional district.The court's conservative majority found that the Louisiana district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts described the 6th Congressional District as a "snake" that stretches more than 320km (200 miles) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.The ruling was authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by his five fellow conservative justices. The dissenting justices are liberals."That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander," Alito wrote on behalf of the six conservatives.Understanding the Voting Rights ActThe Voting Rights Act was a piece of follow-up legislation to the Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B Johnson in 1964. It bans discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin.The 1965 law primarily ended common discriminatory practices against Black voters that were prevalent in many states, including literacy tests, that were designed to prevent them from voting.Section 2 of the act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, colour or membership of a language-minority group. The section has long been understood to bar electoral maps that dilute the voting strength of minority communities, even when there is no direct evidence of racist intent.How the Court Weakened the Voting Rights ActSection 2 of the act was amended by Congress in 1982 to prohibit electoral maps that would result in undermining the clout of minority voters, even without direct proof of racist intent.For more than four decades, plaintiffs could win a Section 2 claim by showing that a voting map had a racially discriminatory impact under this legal standard, known as the "results test".The Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday, however, has in effect applied an "intent test" to Section 2, experts said. In the ruling, Alito wrote that the focus of Section 2 must now be to enforce the US Constitution's prohibition on intentional racial discrimination under its 15th Amendment.Interpreting Section 2 to "outlaw a map solely because it fails to provide a sufficient number of majority-minority districts would create a right that the amendment does not protect", Alito concluded.Political Power Shifts in CongressThe effect of the ruling may be felt more strongly in 2028 because most filing deadlines for this year's congressional races have already passed. Louisiana, though, may have to redraw its congressional districts now to comply with the decision.Republicans currently hold 217 seats in the House while Democrats hold 212. There is one independent and five vacancies in the House. In the Senate, Republicans hold 53 seats and Democrats hold 45. Two independents caucus with the Democrats.The state has primary elections set for May 16. Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry told Republican candidates for the House of Representatives that he planned to suspend next month's primary elections to allow state lawmakers time to approve a new congressional map.Erosion of Civil Rights ProtectionsReactions to the ruling have been sharply divided along political lines."I love it," Trump told reporters after hearing of the decision, adding that he believes Republican-led states will now want to reconfigure their voting maps. In a social media post, Trump praised Alito as "brilliant" and called the ruling "a BIG WIN for Equal Protection under the Law, as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its Original Intent, which was to protect against intentional Racial Discrimination".Former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, warned that the ruling will free state legislatures to reconfigure electoral districts to "systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of 'partisanship' rather than explicit 'racial bias'"."This is a devastating and profound step backwards for American Democracy," Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock wrote on social media.Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices on the Supreme Court, said the ruling rendered the Voting Rights Act "all but a dead letter" and predicted "grave" consequences.Redistricting Battles Ahead of 2026 MidtermsWith November's congressional elections looming, the court's decision could prompt Republican-led states to seek to redraw electoral maps to weaken US House seats considered safely Democratic.The ruling comes during a wider battle over congressional redistricting before midterm elections in November. The Congressional Black Caucus, a group of African American US lawmakers, condemned the ruling."Without the protections of the VRA [Voting Rights Act], Republicans now have the ability to move forward with a nationwide scheme to rig congressional maps in their favor – to manufacture more districts for themselves by eliminating majority-Black districts, while stripping away the ability to challenge those racist, anti-Black maps in court," it said in a statement.Warnock, a member of the caucus, said the ruling gutted the protections that civil rights champion Martin Luther King Jr "marched for [and] the protections made possible by civil rights protesters who spilled blood in pursuit of a more perfect union".

The Stark Divide in War Cost EstimatesUnited States Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has clashed with American lawmakers over the cost of war on Iran in his first appearance on Capitol Hill since the conflict – now into its third month – broke out. The Pentagon told a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee that the US had spent $25bn on its war on Iran, largely on munitions and equipment maintenance. But Democratic leaders and several economists believe that number to be a significant underestimate, with actual costs potentially reaching between $630bn and $1 trillion.The Pentagon's Limited Financial DisclosureThe Pentagon's acting comptroller, Jay Hurst, who testified alongside Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine, presented the estimated figure of $25bn to the committee. "We will formulate a supplemental [on additional funding], through the White House, that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict," Hurst said, promising to provide a cost breakdown later.The estimated figure only reflects "the costs of the war," Hurst explained, factoring in "munitions expended in that total and other operational costs." This figure is significantly smaller than the $200bn initially requested by the Trump administration for the war and the $11.3bn reported for just the first six days of fighting in March.The Economic Ripple Effects Beyond Direct Military SpendingAs the US continues with its blockade of Iranian ports and Tehran controls the Strait of Hormuz, gas prices in the US have hit a new high at $4.23 a gallon – the highest since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine. The Brent crude benchmark has been trading above $120, leading to a 40 percent rise in gas prices compared to pre-war levels.Representative Ro Khanna claimed the war would cost about $631bn – or some $5,000 per household – to the US economy due to increased gas and food prices. "Your $25bn number is totally off," Khanna told Hegseth, highlighting the administration's failure to account for broader economic impacts.The rising cost of living has also affected Trump's approval rating, hitting a record low in his second term with only 22 percent of Americans approving of his handling of cost of living, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.Hidden Costs of War: Infrastructure and Long-term ImplicationsThe US claimed earlier that it struck more than 13,000 targets over the first 39 days of fighting with Iran. For context, the US fired more Patriot missiles in the first four days of the Iran war than it supplied to Ukraine over the past four years, with each missile costing $4m.However, the economics and impact of the war extend far beyond the worth of bombs and missiles. One major expense is reconstructing and repairing damaged assets. After the US-Israeli strikes assassinated former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iranian strikes caused damage to US military camps in Kuwait, alongside other military bases in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain.Earlier this month, NBC News quoted six US officials noting that Iran damaged US military bases and equipment in the Middle East far worse than publicly acknowledged. The damages alone could lead to billions of dollars in repairs, with one report estimating that repairs to the US Navy Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain could cost $200m alone.Historical Precedents and Future ProjectionsHarvard economist Linda Bilmes had estimated in February 2006 that the Iraq war would cost the US $3 trillion, when the George Bush administration was telling the public that fighting would cost $50bn. Twenty years later, Bilmes ended up with among the most accurate predictions, as the Iraq war's total cost is now estimated at $2 trillion."Wars always cost more than expected. Throughout history, those who get into wars tend to be optimistic about the cost and about the length of time it will take," Bilmes noted. "It is hard to measure the exact cost. But based on what we know now, it [the current Iran war] is costing about $2bn a day in short-term, upfront costs, which is the tip of the iceberg."Beyond immediate expenses, Bilmes highlighted long-term costs including veterans' care and restocking weapons inventory. "I am certain we will reach one trillion dollars for the Iran war," she concluded. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has asked for a $1.5 trillion defense budget for next year – a 42 percent increase, or the largest expansion in military spending since World War II.

The Health Crisis of a Jailed Opposition LeaderJailed Tunisian opposition leader Rached Ghannouchi has been urgently transferred to a hospital after experiencing a sharp deterioration in his health, according to his party Ennahdha. The 84-year-old former speaker of parliament and head of the Ennahdha party has been imprisoned since April 2023 in what his supporters and international rights groups describe as a politically motivated campaign to crush dissent.In a statement on Thursday, Ennahdha's media and communications office confirmed that prison authorities were forced to transfer Ghannouchi to hospital for treatment and continuous medical observation over the coming days. The party did not provide specific details regarding his current medical condition, but noted that he suffers from chronic illnesses that require constant family care and attention due to his advanced age.Multiple Prison Sentences and Arbitrary DetentionGhannouchi's hospitalization comes amid multiple prison sentences totaling over 25 years. He was initially arrested in April 2023 on charges of incitement and sentenced to one year in prison. In February 2024, a financial corruption court sentenced him to three years over accusations that his party received foreign contributions – a charge Ennahdha vehemently denied. In February 2025, he was handed a 22-year prison sentence on charges including plotting against state security."In light of this dangerous development, the movement renews its demand for the immediate release of Mr Rached Ghannouchi, considering him arbitrarily detained," the Ennahdha statement read. The party pointed to a 2024 decision by a United Nations committee of experts, which concluded that Ghannouchi is being prosecuted for his freedom of opinion and expression, and that the charges against him lack any legal or factual basis.Widening Crackdown on Political OppositionGhannouchi's situation is part of a broader crackdown on political opposition orchestrated by President Kais Saied. Elected in 2019, Saied – a former law professor – suspended the Tunisian parliament in 2021 and subsequently dissolved the legislature to rule by decree. He later pushed through a controversial referendum on a new constitution that vastly expanded presidential powers, which the opposition has described as a coup.Since consolidating power, Saied's government has targeted numerous opposition figures, journalists, lawyers, and activists. In November 2025, Jawhar Ben Mbarek, cofounder of the National Salvation Front, was hospitalised due to severe dehydration during a hunger strike protesting his detention. Shortly after, prominent opposition figure Ayachi Hammami was arrested in December 2025 to enforce a five-year prison sentence following a mass trial of opposition members.International Condemnation and Human Rights ConcernsHuman rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, have consistently condemned the arrests. In a 2025 report, HRW stated that Tunisia's government had turned arbitrary detention into a cornerstone of repressive policy."Saied's government has returned the country to an era of political prisoners, robbing Tunisians of hard-won civil liberties," said Bassam Khawaja, HRW's deputy Middle East and North Africa director. Despite international criticism, Saied has denied accusations of authoritarianism, maintaining that his actions are necessary to fight corruption, rescue the country from political chaos, and hold those he labels as "terrorists" accountable.Future Outlook for Tunisia's Political LandscapeGhannouchi's hospitalization has intensified international scrutiny on Tunisia's human rights situation. With the health of the highest-profile opposition figure deteriorating, pressure is mounting on President Saied's government to address concerns about arbitrary detention and political prisoners. The Ennahdha party has emphasized that "the natural place for Mr Rached Ghannouchi is to be free in his home among his family," citing his constitutional right to necessary healthcare and international treaties ratified by Tunisia.As Tunisia approaches potential political transitions, the treatment of opposition figures like Ghannouchi will likely remain a critical point of contention both domestically and internationally. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, with human rights organizations likely to further document and report on developments in the coming weeks and months.

The Champions League Rights Auction Disney+ has secured live rights for men’s Champions League matches for the first time, with Uefa attracting a new buyer in the auction of broadcast packages for its flagship club competition. Disney has been named as the preferred bidder in several European countries, one of which is understood to be Sweden, in the auction of 19 TV markets for the 2027-31 cycle that concluded this week. Disney's Growing Interest in Football Rights Disney’s success is significant for the industry because it will be the first time the US company has bought Champions League rights and demonstrates the widening appeal of the competition to broadcasters and streamers. Disney’s interest in football rights has been building for some time, and is likely to grow. The company holds exclusive pan-European rights for the women’s Champions League until 2030 and Europa League and Conference League rights in Sweden and Denmark. The Financial Impact of Champions League Rights Uefa and UC3 last year secured increases of between 20% and 30% on their existing deals in the auction for the biggest five European markets of the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy and France, and are understood to have achieved further double-digit growth in the current round of sales. Uefa is projecting that the total value of its TV rights will exceed €5bn (£4.3bn) a year when the tenders are concluded, and as the Guardian reported this month it also expects to bring in more than €1bn annually through commercial deals. The Future of Sports Broadcasting This outcome will be welcomed by the clubs and domestic leagues because it demonstrates the increasing demand for football rights and will not divert resources from major rights holders such as Sky Sports, TNT Sports or Dazn. The recent auction was for Champions League rights in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Central America, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, South America, Sweden, and Switzerland.