Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Bizarre Premise Behind One Night Only For the most part, the trailer for the upcoming film One Night Only looks like the sweetest possible version of a romcom. A handsome, sensitive-looking man (played by Callum Turner) flirts relentlessly with a big-eyed oddball in a sexy dress (played by Monica Barbaro). They bump into each other, nudge each other, roll their eyes at each other. As a YouTube comment underneath the trailer (that has been liked more than 3,000 times) says: "Romantic comedies are back." A Government-Mandated Night of Passion However, tucked away in this adorable little trailer is a premise that might just be the most confusing in living memory. As Turner's character walks lovelorn through the streets of New York City, his voiceover says: "Finding love is hard enough. Try doing it on the one night of the year single people are legally allowed to have sex." The trailer then hurries along to another procession of meet-cutes and prolonged eye contact. But that doesn't really matter, because you're left thinking: "Wait, the one night of the year where single people are legally allowed to have sex? What the hell?" This, apparently, is the movie. Two cuties meet by chance, and are separated, and have to race across the city to find each other before the sun comes up so that they can enjoy a bout of government-mandated sexual intercourse. It's a tale as old as time. The Practical Implications of a Legal Sex Night Clearly, this raises far more questions than it answers. Is One Night Only basically The Purge, but with all the terror of violence replaced by an increased risk of contracting chlamydia? More importantly, if there really is only one night a year where single people can have sex with impunity, how the hell is this even governed? Judging by the state of the trailer, it seems to mean that everyone just claps eyes on someone and then starts banging them wherever they happen to be, whether that's a restaurant or just in the street like a pair of horny rats. Why is this? Why don't people just go back to their houses and then have sex? Does Sex Night also happen to fall upon a citywide taxi strike? Also, how is this even enforced? Is there a government department that spends its days working out, with precise clarity, the point at which someone stops becoming single, and is therefore allowed to have as much sex as they want on any day of the year? Is it marriage? Is it the first time someone declares their love? If you wanted to be particularly Scandinavian about it, you might argue that sex itself is an act of union, and therefore any moment of penetration instantaneously suspends the notion of singledom. And if that's the case, then surely everyone can just have sex whenever and there's nothing illegal about it. And what about all the unexpected pregnancies this will cause. Should there be a sequel set nine months to the day after One Night Only, full of people mournfully staring into the eyes of all the newborn infants whose sheer existence causes a permanent sense of regret to weigh down their souls? Will this even be addressed in One Night Only? Is anyone going to answer me? Possible Metaphors in Contemporary Society Clearly this has to be a metaphor for something, but clearly the current level of evidence isn't giving much away. Through one lens, you could suppose that it's possible that One Night Only is a clever satire on the US right's crackdown on reproductive rights, and the whole thing is an important and timely statement about the looming threat of a post-Roe worldview that may soon devour the country. But at the same time, maybe this is about Covid? There's something quite pandemicky about the notion that people would have to keep their primal urges at bay in a wholly unnatural way for an extended period of time. Remember how giddily we threw ourselves at each other once restrictions were lifted? Perhaps this is all just an allegory for that. Or both. Or more. Maybe One Night Only is really about capitalism, or ChatGPT or the climate crisis. Maybe it's none of them. Maybe it's just the manifestation of a screenwriter who wished that, just once a year, people would be slightly more inclined to have sex with them. It's honestly hard to say. The Future of "The Purge, but X" Movies Nevertheless, if One Night Only is successful, then it's bound to start an avalanche of "The Purge, but X" movies. What if there was only one night a year when you could have surgery? What if there was only one night a year where you could get a haircut? What if there was only one night a year where you could eat spaghetti with your bare hands? Because, if we're already doing sex, then clearly there are no limits to the Purgiverse's silliness. One Night Only is out in Australian cinemas on 6 August, US cinemas on 7 August and in the UK on 28 August

The Aftermath of Tragedy: A Powerful Theatrical EncounterFran Kranz's 2021 film Mass, featuring two sets of parents whose sons have died in a high-school massacre, was originally written as a play. Restored as such, in Carrie Cracknell's production, it takes place in the backroom of a church where their across-the-table encounter encapsulates a pained instance of restorative justice.Character Portrayals: Navigating Complex EmotionsGail (Lyndsey Marshal) and Jay (Adeel Akhtar) are the parents of Evan, one of 10 children murdered by the teenage shooter, Hayden, the son of Richard (Paul Hilton) and Linda (Monica Dolan), who then killed himself. Evan's parents want to understand why Hayden committed such violence but there is also an unspoken sense of blame buzzing around them. Hayden's parents address this first: we blame ourselves, they say, again and again, yet in one dangerous moment, they posit the notion of separating who their son was, and what he did.Stage Design and Emotional ImpactThe stark, unflinching treatment of this subject matter is well realised on Anna Yates's set, where two office-style storeys stretch across the stage, and it does not sugarcoat the emotionally messy nature of the process. Both sides are explored. One terrible instance of maternal anguish comes from Linda when she speaks about a threatening memory of her son and for this charged moment, the play enters the emotional territory of Lionel Shriver's We Need To Talk About Kevin.Performances: A Masterclass in Emotional DepthIt is hard to beat the force and sensitive performances of Kranz's film but Hilton is masterfully brittle, his entire being sunken with apology, while Dolan is whey-faced and shaky. The always brilliant Akhtar is angrier and edgier than his film counterpart and Marshal brings a moving softness.Theatrical vs. Cinematic ExperienceLike the film, it takes time to build in intensity, with the awkward arrangements of the opening and the small talk. There is not the same reflective space of the film, which pulls away from the claustobia and pain in the room at key moments. Here, there is no looking away.Forgiveness and Polarization: Dual ThemesThe play works on two levels: as a drama of forgiveness and of polarisation. What would happen if any of us sat down with those at the furthest ideological extreme from our own, however unpalatable their views? Listening is the pathway towards empathy for these characters, even if there is desire for vengeance or vindication along the way. By the end, they are all parents who have lost sons, grieving over this tragedy in different ways.Where to Experience This Powerful ProductionAt Donmar Warehouse, London, until 6 June

The Cosmic Vision of Nancy Holt Land artist Nancy Holt (1938-2014) was a master at using her work to place the body, and wider humanity, in a global, cosmic context. Holt and the other land artists of her generation wanted to break out of the restrictions of traditional art forms, using land, nature, and the world itself as their medium. Goodwood's Expansive Exhibition Goodwood provides a fitting setting for the biggest UK exhibition of Holt's work to date – an expansive, lush estate in the middle of the rolling West Sussex countryside. The exhibition features two major sculptural installations placed around the grounds: Ventilation System and Hydra's Head. Architectural and Cosmic Connections In Ventilation System, a huge metallic mechanism pokes out of the vegetation around the main gallery, with tubular aluminum pipes snaking through the landscape and back into the building. This installation exposes the hidden structures of our built environment, making the building's respiratory system visible and giving it a bodily quality. The Hydra's Head Installation Visitors walk through an idyllic meadow down into a gleaming white chalk quarry to find six concrete pools filled with water, arranged like the head of the Hydra constellation. These pools create a profound experience of outer space, reflecting trees, birds, the sky, and even the viewer's own face – essentially creating a portrait of the individual within the vast universe. Indoor Works and Their Limitations The gallery space contains photographs, diagrams, and poems that struggle to match the imposing power of the outdoor installations. Series of photos document waymarkers in the countryside and an English forest where Holt buried a poem for her partner Robert Smithson. Other works include light installations and documentation of her famous Sun Tunnels in the Utah desert. The Legacy of Land Art Holt's work represents a significant shift in artistic expression, moving beyond traditional mediums to engage directly with the environment and cosmic themes. Her installations challenge viewers to consider their place within the vastness of the universe, creating a dialogue between the individual and the cosmos. Future of Cosmic Land Art While this exhibition provides valuable insight into Holt's vision, there's opportunity for future shows to more fully embrace the monumental scale that defined her most powerful works. As environmental and cosmic concerns continue to gain prominence, land art that connects humanity to the universe may see renewed interest and appreciation.

The Lead The play 'Tender' by Dave Harris is a drama that explores themes of sex, masculinity, and vulnerability in a failing strip club. The show aims to challenge societal norms and encourage open conversations about pleasure. Exploring Masculinity and Pleasure Harris, who has always been obsessed with sex, created 'Tender' to explore how infinite pleasure can be and how stifled people are in understanding it. The play presents the idea that masculinity is performed rather than fixed. The Event Details The story revolves around a failing strip club, the Dancing Bears Club, where the characters' rigid ideas about sex and power are challenged. The club's owner sends in his daughter, B, played by Jessie Mei Li, to turn the club's luck around. The Impact Analysis The play aims to create a safe space for discussions about consent and pleasure. Harris and the cast, including Dex Lee and Kwami Odoom, have been working to create an immersive experience, with the audience being handed paddles to indicate their comfort level with interactive scenes. The Prediction Harris predicts that audience members will leave the show feeling vulnerable, turned on, and possibly wanting to call their parents. The play runs at Soho Theatre in London until June 6th.

The Surge in Oil Prices Oil prices soared more than 6 percent on worries about prolonged supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz and fears of a lengthy US siege of Iranian ports, settling at their highest levels in weeks. Market Reaction and Price Increases US crude settled up 6.95 percent at $106.88 per barrel on Wednesday, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, was up 6.08 percent, or $6.77, at $118.03 after earlier touching its highest price since June 2022. Brent crude futures for June continued to rise on Thursday to $119.94 per barrel as of 00:57 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate futures were at $107.51. The Impact of the US-Iran Conflict Oil prices continue to surge with no resolution in sight to the two-month-long US-Israel war on Iran, and as supplies of fuel remain snarled in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian forces have imposed a blockade on the transit of vessels and the US is besieging Iranian ports and shipping. US Response and Potential Mitigation Measures A White House official said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump had asked US oil companies about ways to mitigate the impact of a potentially months-long siege of Iranian ports. The president and the oil executives “discussed the steps President Trump has taken to ⁠alleviate global oil markets and steps we could take to continue the current blockade for months if needed and minimize impact on American consumers,” the White House official said. Regional Impact and Economic Concerns “Prospects for any near-term resolution to the Iran conflict or a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz remain dim,” IG market analyst Tony Sycamore said in a note on the current situation. Al Jazeera’s Barnaby Lo, reporting from Seoul, South Korea, said almost the entire Asia Pacific region is dependent on oil imports and much of those supplies come from the Middle East. “So with the price of Brent crude touching $120 a barrel, there is no doubt that is going to have a huge impact on the region. The Asian Development Bank already cutting its growth forecast for the region from 5.1 percent to 4.7 percent this year,” Lo said. UAE's OPEC Exit and Market Implications President Trump on Wednesday also welcomed the announced withdrawal of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), saying, “I think it’s great”. The UAE’s President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan was “very smart” and probably wanted to go his “own way”, Trump said. “I think ultimately it’s a good thing for getting the price of gas down, getting oil down, getting everything down,” Trump added.

The Congressional Hearing United States Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has faced his first public questioning from Congress on the US-Israel war with Iran. Over hours of tense testimony alongside Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, Hegseth batted away questions about the long-term goals and timeline of war, which began with the US-Israel launching attacks on Iran on February 28. $25-billion Price Tag For the first time, the Pentagon publicly put the price tag of the war so far at $25bn, with Hegseth delivering an at-times caustic defence of US President Donald Trump’s policy. Hegseth also defended the White House’s historic request of a $1.5 trillion defence budget. Questions Over Iran's Nuclear Programme It was on the subject of Iran’s nuclear programme that Hegseth faced some of the harshest questioning, with lawmakers grilled the Pentagon chief on the war’s aims. Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat, seized on Hegseth’s apparently contradicting statements that Iran’s nuclear programme was “obliterated” following the 12-day war with Iran in 2025 and that it presented an imminent threat in the run-up to the most recent war. Don't Call it a 'Quagmire' In one of the most heated exchanges of the day, Hegseth bristled when Representative John Garamendi, a Democrat, called the war a “quagmire” and a “political and economic disaster at every level”. The Pentagon chief accused the lawmaker of “handing propaganda ⁠to our enemies”. No Quarter for Enemies? Moulton also asked Hegseth about his past statement that US forces would allow “no quarter, no mercy for our enemies”. The phrase has historically referred to killing enemy combatants, even if they have surrendered, a war crime under international and humanitarian law. Caine Appears to Give Higher US Death Toll The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff also presented a stout defence of the war during his opening remarks, saying Iran remains “a weaker and less capable than they have been in decades”. During the statement, Caine referenced 14 members of the US military who had died during the war. To date, the Pentagon has only identified 14 casualties. Republicans Show Support While Democrats on the committee pursued a series of pointed questions, Republicans were generally supportive of Hegseth and the war. That is significant, as Friday will mark 60 days since Trump officially notified Congress of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran. Under the 1973 War Powers Act, Trump is theoretically required to begin withdrawing troops after 60 days or receive congressional authorisation to keep fighting.

The Standoff Between US and Iran President Donald Trump says the United States will continue its naval blockade of Iran until a nuclear deal is reached with Tehran. The US president told Axios on Wednesday that he does not want to end his blockade on Iranian ports, apparently rejecting the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz so that US-Iran talks could proceed. Iran's Response to the Blockade Iran has set lifting the siege as a precondition for returning to the talks. According to several media reports, Iran offered a limited deal this week that would end its own blockade on Hormuz in exchange for the end of the siege on its ports. Trump's comments on Wednesday indicate that he turned down the Iranian proposal. Economic Impact of the Blockade The blockade has sent oil prices soaring, fuelling energy inflation in the US, where the price of one gallon of petrol has surpassed $4.22 ($1.11 per litre) – up from less than $3 ($0.79 per litre) before the war. The international benchmark Brent crude oil futures jumped to more than $119 per barrel on Wednesday as Washington and Tehran escalated their rhetoric. Future Outlook Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on Wednesday that the US is trying to “activate economic pressure and internal division” in the country “to weaken or even collapse us from within”. He promised that Iranians “will defeat this deceptive plan of the enemy” and “achieve a brilliant victory” in the war. Separately, an unidentified senior security source told Iran’s state-owned Press TV that the blockade will soon be met with “practical and unprecedented action”.

The Flawed Mandate Plan A simple principle lies at the heart of pension investment: the pension manager must invest in the best interest of the client. UK ministers have often wished UK funds would show more home bias by channelling more pensioners’ cash towards domestic assets in the interests of economic growth, but the fundamental rule of the game has always been understood. You don’t mess with the fiduciary duty. Rachel Reeves's Mansion House Accord Thus, when Rachel Reeves a year ago unveiled her Mansion House accord – a pledge by 17 of the biggest providers to earmark a slice of workplace pensions for UK private assets – it was made clear the arrangement was voluntary. What’s more, as the signatories emphasised, the commitment was “subject to fiduciary duty and the consumer duty” and “dependent on implementation by the government and regulators of critical enablers”. The Data Analysis The accord's goal was to allocate 10% of assets to private markets (think infrastructure, property, venture capital), of which half would be in the UK. All the big names – Aviva, Legal & General, M&G;, Mercer, NatWest and more – were on board. Their progress towards the target could be measured. The Impact Analysis Life became messy, however, when Reeves raised the prospect of having powers to mandate the funds to follow through on their commitments. One can understand her motivation, of course. If you think more UK investment by UK funds means faster UK growth, you want to be confident the cash will flow. Yet “backstop” powers always failed a test of logic: how can a pledge be both voluntary and enforceable? The Prediction In short, a back-stop power will still exist – but only in heavily diluted form. The powers can’t be used before 2028. They will disappear if not used by 2032, and by 2035 if they are. Critically, a “saver’s interest test” means the government would have to ask the financial regulator to assess any ministerial direction to mandate. Nor can ministers force money towards specific projects, meaning the HS2 nightmare is off the table.

The FCC Probe and Free Speech BacklashPresident Donald Trump's administration has initiated a review of broadcast licenses for multiple ABC channels, a move that has ignited fierce criticism from free speech advocates across the political spectrum. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on Tuesday that it would compel eight local ABC channels to file for early license renewal, citing diversity measures that potentially amount to "unlawful discrimination." However, critics have immediately pointed to the timing of the review, which comes directly after Trump and his wife Melania called for the firing of ABC host Jimmy Kimmel over a controversial joke."The FCC's unconstitutional threats against ABC are the latest confirmation that Chairman Brendan Carr has weaponised what should be an independent agency in service of Donald Trump's personal political agenda," Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders in North America, said in a statement. "The FCC has no authority to revoke ABC's licences just because the president can't take a joke."The Kimmel Controversy and Presidential ResponseThe probe follows a joke made by Kimmel at an "alternative" White House correspondents' dinner on his show. The comedian said: "Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow." The remark drew immediate condemnation from the Trumps, who called for Kimmel's termination after the shooting incident at the White House Correspondents' Association gala dinner in Washington, DC.On Monday, Kimmel dismissed the outrage over the joke, stating that it "obviously" was not a call to violence. "[It] was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke," he said on his Jimmy Kimmel Live! show.In a twist of events, Kimmel later highlighted a comment Trump himself made about his own age during a speech welcoming Britain's King Charles. The president told his wife that they "won't be able to match" his parents' record of 63 years of marriage. Kimmel aired Trump's joke on his Tuesday night show and quipped, "Wait a minute. Did he just make a joke about his death? My god. He should be fired for that."Bipartisan Criticism and Constitutional ConcernsThe FCC decision has sparked rare Republican criticism of the Trump administration, with US Senator Ted Cruz denouncing the review. "It is not government's job to censor speech, and I do not believe the FCC should operate as the speech police," Cruz told the outlet Punchbowl News.Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez called the agency's move against ABC "unprecedented," "unlawful" and "bound to fail." "This is the most egregious assault on the First Amendment that we have seen from this FCC," Gomez told CNN.US Senator Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, wrote on X: "Must be a total coincidence that the FCC launched this probe right after Jimmy Kimmel told another joke Trump didn't like. The FCC can try to dress this up however they want, but this is just another flagrant attempt to silence Trump critics & stifle free speech."Amnesty International USA also accused the FCC of using authoritarian tactics. "The agency must start taking its responsibility to respect freedom of the press and freedom of expression seriously," the rights group said in a statement.Disney's Response and Historical ContextABC's parent company, Disney, has defended its stations, stating they "have a long record of operating in full compliance with FCC rules and serving their local communities with trusted news, emergency information, and public‑interest programming." The company expressed confidence in its qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment.This is not the first time Trump and his allies have targeted Kimmel. Last year, ABC briefly suspended Kimmel after the FCC threatened to take action against the network over commentary by the comedian suggesting that the killer of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk may have been a Republican. Kimmel subsequently returned to his show after an outcry from free speech advocates.Efforts to revoke broadcast licenses typically face significant legal and administrative challenges, often turning into years-long processes. The last time the FCC succeeded in revoking a broadcasting licence over a station's content was in 1969 – a local TV channel in Mississippi that was accused of discriminating against African Americans during the civil rights movement.Broader Implications for Media and Political DiscourseThe probe against ABC comes amid a broader pattern of the Trump administration targeting critics and dissenting voices. As a candidate, Trump vowed to "restore free speech," but since returning to the White House for a second term in January 2025, his administration has been accused of pushing to silence dissent, particularly Palestinian rights advocacy.Last year, the Trump administration launched a campaign to deport non-citizens – including foreign students and legal permanent residents – over criticism of Israel. More recently, federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against former FBI director James Comey, a vocal critic of Trump, over a social media post that was interpreted as a threat against the president.Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche denied the charges were politically motivated, but critics view the pattern of actions against media figures and political opponents as part of a coordinated effort to suppress dissent and consolidate power.Legal Challenges and Future OutlookLegal experts predict that the FCC's probe against ABC will face immediate and sustained legal challenges, likely based on First Amendment protections. The Communications Act requires that license renewal decisions be made "in the public interest," a standard that has traditionally been interpreted to include protecting free speech and preventing government censorship of broadcast content."This is bound to fail in court," predicted media law professor Eric Segall. "The Supreme Court has consistently held that the government cannot punish speech simply because it finds it offensive or disagreeable. The FCC's actions here appear to be a transparent attempt to punish a network for content critical of the president."The outcome of this case could have significant implications for media freedom in the United States, potentially setting precedents for how future administrations interact with broadcast media and whether the FCC can be used as a tool for political retribution against critical news organizations.