Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

At Augusta National, Justin Rose’s name appears twice on the bronze winner’s list beside the victories of Sergio García (2017) and Rory McIlroy (2025) – both wins coming after playoffs that Rose lost. Only Ben Hogan shares the dubious distinction of losing two Masters playoffs, though Hogan later won the tournament twice outright.Rose’s record also includes a second‑place finish in 2015, four strokes behind Jordan Spieth. The only player with more runner‑up finishes without ever winning is Tom Weiskopf, who was second four times in seven years.Now 45 years old and entering his 21st Masters, Rose cannot predict if he will ever get as close again as he did last year, when McIlroy’s birdie putt on the 18th sealed a one‑stroke playoff defeat.“When you realise you’re that close, you can taste the victory,” Rose says. “I lived it as if I’d won, but without the real positive emotion – I sensed everything.” He acknowledges the mental rehearsal of the “what‑if” scenario while maintaining that he “did everything he could” and can live with the result.Rose explains his mental formula: “You can’t make a major win too important in the moment,” because a career inevitably includes “a little bit of heart‑ache and heartbreak.” He believes that to win, a player must also be prepared to be on the losing side.Despite the setbacks, Rose feels he has already demonstrated the necessary skill set. “I’ve pretty much done what it takes to win. I just haven’t walked over the line,” he asserts, emphasizing that he does not feel the need to change his approach.Recent form offers optimism. Earlier this year Rose set a new course record at Torrey Pines and became the first player in 71 years to win the Farmers Insurance Open wire‑to‑wire. He notes that eight players have captured the Masters after finishing second the previous year, suggesting his odds improve when the field is considered.Rose is also mindful of external narratives. “People are wishing me well and thinking it’s my year,” he admits, adding that he must manage expectations and craft his own story rather than buying into others’ predictions.

The recent commentary on Donald Trump's presidency has highlighted a critical concern: the world cannot afford to wait for him to leave office. Trump's administration has effectively eroded central tenets of the US legal and civic structure, rendering the traditional checks and balances on political power ineffective.Waiting for the downfall of one individual raises two crucial questions. Firstly, will others with similar politics simply take his place? Secondly, if the country and the world wish to move in a different direction, when can we expect to see a plan?It is essential to remember that changes brought about by Trump's presidency cannot always be easily abolished or replaced. The implications of his actions, and those of his administration, are far-reaching and have significant consequences for global stability.Some argue that faith in the November midterm elections may be too optimistic, as Trump and his administration are already preparing to undermine them. The concern is that he will not allow himself to lose.Others suggest that the media and public have a role to play in puncturing Trump's pride and casting doubt on his legacy. Keeping a running count of the death toll of civilians, children, aid workers, and journalists killed since his presidency began could be one way to hold him accountable.The situation has drawn comparisons to the fall of the Roman Empire, with some warning that the current instability could lead to a similar collapse of political structures. As such, there is an urgent need for a plan to address the consequences of Trump's actions and to work towards a more stable future.

Billy Livsey, an American musician who arrived in England in the 1970s, transitioned from touring with Slim Chance and Gallagher & Lyle to writing hits for Shakin’ Stevens, Elkie Brooks and Paul Young before being tapped to write for the teen pop group Five Star. In the mid‑80s Livsey co‑wrote the chart‑topping single “System Addict” with Gary Bell, and a few months later his publisher suggested a partnership with lyricist Peter Sinfield. After a brief exchange of a rough melody, Sinfield asked Livsey to pen the words over the phone, resulting in the lyric sheet for what would become “Rain Or Shine.” The demo featured the renowned session vocalist Tessa Niles, whose résumé includes touring with The Police and singing on Eric Clapton’s “Layla” on his Unplugged album. Livsey recalls that her effortless delivery set the tone for the final recording. Recording took place at London’s iconic Mayfair Studios, a venue that had hosted legends such as George Michael and Tina Turner. Livsey admits he “stole” a sequencer fragment from Donald Fagen’s “New Frontier” to give the track a subtle, progressive‑pop edge. Five Star’s lead vocalist Deniece Pearson remembers the demo’s female vocal as a revelation compared to an earlier male‑sung version of “All Fall Down.” Her father and manager, Buster Pearson, urged her to “listen to the lady on the demo and articulate your words.” Because she was wearing braces, Deniece deliberately over‑enunciated to keep the metal from sticking to her lips – a quirky detail she still laughs about. Studio sessions were far from smooth. Frequent electrical glitches prompted Livsey to joke, “Gremlin. Gremlin.” Yet he remained confident, insisting that such hiccups often precede a hit record – a prediction that proved accurate. Upon release, “Rain Or Shine” became a staple of Five Star’s live repertoire, earning spots on Top of the Pops, the Royal Variety Performance and the Miss World stage. During a tour, a fan pulled Deniece into the audience pit, only to be rescued by her “hunky Italian” security guard, a moment she now recounts with affection. Today the song closes the group’s concerts as an encore, with audiences singing along and often moving Deniece to tears. She credits Livsey’s melodic craftsmanship, noting that the 80s songwriting formula – a strong melody followed by soaring vocals – remains the song’s enduring charm.

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.'

Utah has enacted a law that effectively shields fossil fuel companies from legal accountability for climate damages. The legislation, signed by Republican Governor Spencer Cox, limits the ability of residents to sue these companies for their role in contributing to climate change. The new law is part of a broader effort by the fossil fuel industry and its allies to secure legal immunity in statehouses and Congress. This push is aimed at countering a wave of litigation filed by states, subnational governments, and individuals who claim that fossil fuel companies knew their products would cause climate damages but sold them anyway. Critics argue that the law prioritizes profits for the biggest polluters over communities already suffering from climate impacts. The law requires challengers to provide 'clear and convincing evidence' that damage or injury has resulted directly from a violation, making it virtually impossible to successfully sue polluters for climate damages. The legislation was sponsored by Republican Representative Carl Albrecht, who has received funding from oil and gas interests. Albrecht's ties to the industry have raised concerns about the bill's motivations. The law closely mirrors a model policy called the Energy Freedom Act, circulated by the conservative group Consumers Defense, which has financial ties to a group linked to Leonard Leo, a key figure in the far-right takeover of the Supreme Court. The passage of Utah's law comes as climate lawsuits against big oil companies are inching closer to trial. Seventy cities, states, and individuals have sued energy majors for allegedly deceiving the public about the climate crisis. New York and Vermont have also passed climate 'superfund' laws requiring major polluters to pay for damages caused by their past planet-heating pollution. Lawmakers and advocates have amassed evidence that oil companies intentionally covered up the climate harms of their products. Climate science continues to warn that fossil fuels are the primary cause of dangerous global warming. Critics argue that the fossil fuel industry is pushing for immunity because it knows it cannot win on the merits of its case.

The cost of living crisis in the UK has become a persistent reality for many low-income families, who are struggling to make ends meet. The situation has worsened due to the ripple effects of the war in Ukraine, with companies expected to raise prices rapidly in the coming months.The author, Ella Michalski, is part of Changing Realities, a collaboration of parents and low-income families from across the UK. She shares her personal experience of struggling to get by, with her family relying heavily on their car due to her daughters' complex needs. The financial circumstances of her family have not significantly improved in the past five years, despite her partner working.The article highlights the need for more support from the government, particularly for families with dependent children. The recent abolition of the two-child benefit cap and the rise in the minimum wage are seen as positive steps, but more needs to be done to address the root causes of poverty. The author also calls for changes to universal credit, including ending the punishing five-week wait for a first payment.The government's crisis and resilience fund (CRF) is seen as a step in the right direction, but its accessibility and effectiveness are concerns. The author argues that the government needs to target cost of living support at those who need it most, with a recognition that families with dependent children need more support.

The United Kingdom’s new inheritance tax framework for agricultural holdings and family enterprises takes effect on Monday, and accountants warn it will create significant challenges for those affected.After the government’s October 2024 proposal to impose inheritance tax on farms sparked nationwide protests, ministers responded in December 2025 by raising the tax‑free threshold from the originally planned £1 million to £2.5 million per individual.Under the revised rules, the first £2.5 million of combined farm and business assets will continue to enjoy 100 % relief from inheritance tax, while any value exceeding that amount will receive only 50 % relief. Each heir is allocated a personal allowance of £2.5 million.Elsa Littlewood, private‑client partner at BDO, described the rollout as a watershed moment for the farming and family‑business community. She acknowledged the “welcome concessions” but stressed that the new regime represents a “significant departure” from previous policy, demanding earlier and more intensive succession planning.Littlewood highlighted that many farms are “asset‑rich but cash‑poor,” meaning the revised tax structure could force beneficiaries to liquidate land or other assets to meet inheritance‑tax liabilities. This risk underscores the need for owners to engage in proactive estate planning to preserve the long‑term viability of their enterprises.While the threshold increase was applauded by some sector representatives, critics argue the changes remain insufficient to quell rural anger, noting that only the largest estates will now face higher tax bills.

Guy Singh-Watson, founder of organic veg box company Riverford, has expressed deep regret for the decades he spent confined by traditional masculinity. On International Women's Day, he found himself in a crowd of mostly women, listening to his wife discuss her experiences. This encounter made him realize that many issues discussed on IWD relate to male behavior, and men should be paying attention. Challenging Traditional Masculinity: Singh-Watson notes that success in farming and most businesses depends on building and maintaining relationships. He recalls that when Riverford first measured its gender pay gap in 2017, women earned an average of 91p an hour compared to their male colleagues' £1. Despite efforts to address the issue, progress was slow until a new, younger female farm manager, Maddie, took charge and transformed the workplace culture. Under Maddie's leadership, Riverford became one of the few veg farms with a waiting list for pickers. The company achieved this by creating a fun, emotionally safe, and fulfilling work environment. Singh-Watson acknowledges that he and other men in leadership roles often struggle with sensitive issues and tend to turn to women for resolution. A Shift Towards Inclusivity: The cultural shift at Riverford began with its transition to employee ownership in 2018. This process required introspection and evaluation of decision-making processes. With the help of a business change coach and the company's head of HR, a genuinely inclusive culture was built. As a result, Riverford now has a negative gender pay gap, with women earning 1.56% more per hour than men. Singh-Watson emphasizes that men can change and that embracing emotional literacy – kindness, openness, empathy, and compassion – makes them stronger. He encourages men to cast off limiting beliefs around what it means to be a man and to support each other and the women in their lives. Ultimately, inclusivity benefits everyone, and men must take responsibility for creating a more equitable and compassionate work environment.

From Monday, the United Kingdom’s statutory sick‑pay system will shift to pay employees from the first day of illness, a change that the Trades Union Congress (TUC) says will benefit up to 9.6 million workers. The reform is part of the first tranche of the Employment Rights Act 2025, which also introduces new safeguards on sexual harassment, parental leave and trade‑union recognition. Under the new rules, roughly 8.4 million employees who already receive statutory sick pay will see their entitlement start on day one rather than after a three‑day waiting period. In addition, about 1.2 million workers previously excluded because they earned less than the £125‑a‑week threshold will now qualify for the benefit. The expansion is expected to aid groups that are over‑represented in low‑paid or part‑time roles – notably women, disabled staff, and younger or older workers. The TUC argues that the measure will ease the financial pressure on lower‑income households, which often face a choice between extending their illness or forfeiting essential income. A TUC‑commissioned poll found that 76 % of respondents support sick pay from day one, indicating broad public approval across party lines. Business representatives, however, warn that the policy adds to a string of cost pressures already hitting firms. Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, highlighted that employers are simultaneously coping with higher national‑minimum wages, increased payroll taxes and rising energy costs linked to the ongoing war with Iran. He cautioned that the new sick‑pay rules could force some companies to cut staff or raise prices, describing the situation as a "tipping point". Carberry also warned of potential abuse, saying a small minority of workers might attempt to exploit the system unless clear guidance is issued quickly. "The changes to statutory sick pay introduced this week will also cause chaos if not coupled swiftly with better guidance for firms," he said.