Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The LeadThe Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) has initiated a significant legal challenge against South Africa's National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), arguing that arms exports to the United States may violate domestic legislation and international peace and security standards. The case represents a rare challenge to South Africa's arms export policies and comes amid already strained diplomatic relations between the two nations.Legal Challenge DetailsSALC filed its application in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, seeking to either suspend or set aside the arms export permits granted by the NCACC. The organization contends that the committee failed to properly apply the standards set out in South Africa's National Conventional Arms Control Act, which requires authorities to refuse or withdraw permits where there is a risk that arms exports could contribute to human rights violations or undermine international peace and security.The legal challenge targets several high-level respondents, including the chairperson of the NCACC, the minister of defense, and the president of South Africa. At the time of the filing, the government had not issued a public response to the lawsuit.Financial Impact of Arms ExportsAccording to SALC, South Africa authorized arms exports worth tens of millions of US dollars to the United States in 2025 alone. The organization claims it had previously raised concerns with authorities regarding these permits but did not receive a substantive response, prompting the legal action.The financial value of these exports underscores the significance of the case, as it involves substantial economic interests alongside human rights and international security considerations.International Relations ImplicationsThe lawsuit emerges within a complex diplomatic context between South Africa and the United States, which have experienced differences on various issues including foreign policy, trade, aid policy, and international cooperation. While the legal challenge does not directly address diplomatic relations, it arises from and contributes to the broader international discourse on arms control and global security.Notably, SALC believes this case to be the first in South Africa to challenge arms exports to a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council on the basis of international law and human rights concerns, though this claim has not been independently verified.Future OutlookA hearing date has not yet been set for the case, and the High Court has not ruled on the merits of the application. The outcome of this legal challenge could potentially set a significant precedent for South Africa's arms export policies and its approach to international human rights obligations.The case also highlights growing global scrutiny of arms transfers and their potential human rights implications, particularly when involving major military powers and regions of geopolitical significance.

Scientific Consensus Reaffirmed as Flawed Vaccine Studies RetractedThree scientific papers that raised questions about vaccine safety and were used by the Trump administration to justify controversial changes to US vaccine policies have recently been removed, retracted, or placed under investigation by the journals that published them. This development comes as public health officials across the US report a rise in vaccine-preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles, which many experts attribute to growing vaccine hesitancy fueled by misinformation.The Three Studies Under ScrutinyThe three papers shared a common theme: the claim that vaccinated children had a greater risk of health problems than unvaccinated children. However, all three have been roundly criticized for using poor methodologies and analyses.A 2021 paper by Neil Z Miller in Toxicology Reports suggested a link between vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This paper has since been removed by the journal.A 2020 paper by Miller and Brian S Hooker published in Sage Open Medicine suggested vaccinated children had higher rates of certain health problems like developmental delays and asthma. This paper now has an expression of concern attached and is under investigation.A 2010 paper by Carolyn M Gallagher and Melody S Goodman in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health found boys vaccinated for Hepatitis B in their first four weeks of life were more likely to be diagnosed with autism. This paper has been retracted.Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary who has been a leader in the anti-vaccine movement for decades, relied on two of these studies for his 2023 book "Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak," which argued unvaccinated children were healthier than vaccinated children. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cited the Gallagher/Goodman paper when it changed its long-held position that vaccines do not cause autism, directly contradicting scientific consensus.Rising Vaccine-Preventable Diseases and Public Health ImpactPublic health officials and physicians across the US are reporting a concerning rise in vaccine-preventable diseases. Scientists argue that these three studies have been used by the anti-vaccine movement to plant seeds of doubt with parents, eroding confidence in the safety of life-saving vaccines."People and organizations intent on spreading vaccine misinformation have been very savvy in their misuse of scientific terms, such as 'gold-standard science,' and publishing flawed studies to give their claims the appearance of credibility and confuse the public," said Dr Karina Top, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Alberta. "These papers are poor science, it appears the authors are making the data fit their hypothesis that vaccines are harmful."The impact of these flawed studies extends beyond academic debate. The CDC's change in position on vaccines and autism, influenced by the Gallagher/Goodman paper, has contributed to public confusion about vaccine safety. Similarly, the Miller/Hooker study has been cited by anti-vaccine lawyer Aaron Siri in presentations to federal vaccine advisory committees, potentially influencing policy decisions.Shifting Vaccine Policy Landscape Under the Trump AdministrationThe Trump administration, led by Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, has cited these controversial studies to justify significant changes to US vaccine policies. The administration has moved away from long-standing scientific consensus on vaccine safety, with the CDC modifying its website to suggest that studies supporting a link between vaccines and autism have been "ignored by health authorities.""They have a strong opinion about what is true. And then they go looking for whatever scrap of low-quality evidence they can find to support that opinion," said Morgan McSweeney, a scientist who posts as Dr.Noc. "If that finding supports the story that they believe, they're willing to overlook data points from hundreds of thousands or millions of children and go with the one that fits their story."The delayed action by journals has allowed these studies to influence public perception and policy for years. In some cases, the retraction or removal occurred years after scientists first raised alarms about the studies' scientific merits, during which time the anti-vaccine movement continued to cite them as evidence of vaccine dangers.Future of Vaccine Science and Policy in QuestionThe retraction of these studies raises important questions about the future of vaccine science and policy in the US. The scientific community is calling for more rigorous peer review processes and quicker responses to concerns about flawed research, particularly when such research has potential public health implications."Top called for the publisher and editors to conduct a thorough review of the peer review process and their response to the previous complaints, and to commit to improving the timeliness of their response in future," the article notes, suggesting that the scientific publishing community may need to reform its approach to controversial studies with potential public health impacts.As the US continues to grapple with rising rates of vaccine-preventable diseases, the retraction of these studies may mark a turning point in the public conversation about vaccine safety. However, the damage done by years of misinformation may be difficult to reverse, requiring sustained efforts from public health officials, scientists, and medical professionals to rebuild trust in vaccines and the scientific process.

The End of an Era for Free-to-Air Cricket As Rudi Koertzen and Billy Bowden removed the bails at The Oval and celebrations began across the country after a grandstand finish to an epochal Ashes, it signalled not only the end of England's 18-year wait to claim back the urn, but the last rites of live Test match cricket on terrestrial TV in the UK. In December 2004, the ECB announced a landmark four-year deal worth £220m that gave Sky exclusive rights to show live cricket, with Channel 4 – which had been showing home Test matches since 1999 – left with nothing. This decision, made more than 20 years ago, remains one of English cricket's most controversial and divisive moments. The Financial Breakthrough Behind the Paywall For Giles Clarke, who led the negotiations in his role as chair of the ECB's marketing committee, it was a simple case of economics. "The alternative was a significant decline in income," said Clarke at the time. "Major cuts would have had to have been made in the funding of the England team, the support structure and to county cricket clubs as well." Clarke insists that the ECB's financial modeling presented a bleak picture if they were to accept Channel 4's bid. "We worked out that at least seven counties would have had to close, and I'm being very serious here. We would have had to cut back on our youth programmes and we couldn't see what we could fund. The game as we knew it, in the opinion of the guys who did the financial modeling, would not exist." In negotiations with Vic Wakeling, Sky's head of sport, Clarke insisted the ECB would need more money if they were to justify the decision to take live cricket off free-to-air. "We sat Vic down and said, 'If you don't [increase your offer], we aren't going to consider doing this with you. You've got to give us a better reason.' We got Sky to increase their bid by £30m. I think we did a bloody good job on the money." The Audience Impact and Accessibility Concerns Channel 4 had innovated in areas that had never been touched before, according to Mark Nicholas, Channel 4's frontman across their seven years as the home of Test cricket in the UK. "We made the game more accessible by the way that we styled it, so it didn't feel too elitist or too difficult." Having won the broadcasting rights before the 1999 season, the same summer that England were defeated by New Zealand on home soil to become officially the worst Test side in the world, Channel 4 brought viewers the team's subsequent rise under Nasser Hussain and then Michael Vaughan, culminating in the Ashes triumph of 2005 when a peak audience of 8.4 million tuned in to watch Ashley Giles and Matthew Hoggard clinch a nail-biter at Trent Bridge. When England sealed the deal at The Oval just over a week later, Channel 4 reported their highest-rating day ever – at 23.2%, the channel's total share of all TV viewing broke the record set by the Big Brother final three years earlier. By then the ink had dried on the ECB's contract with Sky. The Divisive Legacy of the Decision Channel 4 released a statement saying they hoped the ECB "would not come to regret its decision to turn its back on the hundreds of hours of terrestrial exposure that Channel 4 was offering". Their innovative coverage had been widely lauded since they had usurped the BBC to win the broadcasting rights alongside Sky in a two-pronged deal that involved the latter showing one home Test match each summer between 1999 and 2005. Speaking to key figures involved at the time, it's clear that passions still run high. There remains a sense of animosity between the different camps, accusations of underhand PR campaigns, and a refusal to accept that the other side may have a point. There are legacies to protect. In a sense, it's English cricket's Brexit. "We were faced with a horrendous situation but there was no doubt in the minds of all of us who were involved, and there was no doubt in our minds 15 years later, that we did the only thing we could do," says Giles Clarke, reflecting on the deal he struck with Sky 22 years ago. "There have been a lot of lies and rubbish said about this. Channel 4 did not bid for all the Test matches – they only wanted the second series each summer. The BBC said they were not going to bid two days before the did date for bids. Sky had bid for absolutely everything." The Future Outlook for Cricket Broadcasting More than 20 years later, it remains one of English cricket's most divisive and controversial decisions. Did taking live cricket off free-to-air TV secure the future of the English game, or hold it back at exactly the moment it was ready to fly? "When they did the deal in 2004 for 2006 to 2009, they actually only got £55m per year," said Terry Blake, the TCCB's marketing manager and then ECB's commercial director between 1989 and 2003. "So for £10m per year more, which no doubt helped Giles Clarke secure his chairmanship for years to come, they moved it off free-to-air television altogether. I would turn it round and say: imagine the audiences we would have grown and the interest we would have had at the grassroots level had we stayed on free-to-air, even if we'd had to take a slight drop from the £45m per year [received from the 2002-05 deal with Sky and Channel 4]. Whatever money was put into the grassroots because of additional money from Sky, it could never replace the top-down approach." "The music, the graphics, the commentary team, the public's love of it – it had become really rather special," recalls Nicholas. "It was a bit of a cult. The coverage in 2005 was probably universally appreciated more than any other at that stage, so much so that even Kerry Packer in Australia was saying, 'How come they're doing it better than we're doing it?' When you give something such a deep dive, and you're going so well with it, and you feel like you've got so much left to do, it's difficult to stomach that the rights have moved on."

The Rise of Itamar Ben-Gvir In recent weeks, Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has shown the world a version of 'modern Israel' it had preferred not to see. From telling the press that he would 'not allow' a United States ceasefire deal with Iran that was bad for Israel to his televised harassment of bound activists of the Global Sumud Flotilla, Ben-Gvir's actions have drawn outrage on a global stage. Ben-Gvir's Controversial Background Ben-Gvir was hardly an unknown quantity when he entered government in 2022. His first brush with national prominence came in 1995, after Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to the Oslo Accords, a series of agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which the world hoped was a path towards a two-state solution. Ben-Gvir was 19 years old when he was filmed brandishing the Cadillac hood ornament from Rabin's car, declaring to the cameras: 'We got to his car, we'll get to him, too.' Rabin was assassinated just weeks later by right-wing extremist and ultranationalist Yigal Amir. The Impact of Ben-Gvir's Actions Ben-Gvir has been accused by analysts and activists of moulding the Israeli police force in his own far-right image. He has boasted on social media of worsening the already harrowing conditions of Palestinian detainees, many held without charge, while defending the rape and forced starvation of others. The Future of Israeli Politics Despite the international blowback, Ben-Gvir's base appears to be holding firm, even as the star of his more sober counterpart on the extreme right, Bezalel Smotrich, appears to be fading. Israeli pollster Dahlia Scheindlin pointed out that, in reality, Ben-Gvir's policy positions were rarely more extreme than many in the governing Likud party.

England's Statistical Route to World Cup GloryWho will England have to beat to win the World Cup for the first time since 1966? While we can't predict the future, the Opta supercomputer provides probabilistic estimates of what could happen. Let's establish the "what if" scenarios and map out England's potential path to the final.Group Stage Probabilities and AdvancementEngland are the top seeds in Group L alongside Croatia, Ghana and Panama. According to Opta's 10,000 tournament simulations, England made it through to the knockout stage 96% of the time and won the group in 67.9% of simulations. They are the third-likeliest side to win their group behind only Spain (75.3%) and Argentina (73.0%).The supercomputer projects Croatia as the next-most likely to qualify alongside England (77.8%), above Ghana (49.7%) and Panama (39.4%). With eight teams able to qualify for the last 32 having finished third in their group, there's a strong chance only one team from Group L will be eliminated in the group stage.Last 32: The Likely Challenge of DR CongoIf England top their group, they will face one of the eight third-placed teams in the next round. The teams most likely to finish third in their groups are Côte d'Ivoire (Group E), Saudi Arabia (H), Senegal (I), Algeria (J) and DR Congo (K). Of the 495 possible combinations, England are most likely to face DR Congo on 1 July in Atlanta, which would happen in 66.7% of scenarios.DR Congo have only appeared in one previous World Cup, in 1974 as Zaire, when they lost all three games, failed to score and conceded 14 times. England have played eight matches against African sides at World Cups and have never lost (five wins and three draws), including a 3-0 win over Senegal at the last tournament in 2022.Last 16: The Mexican Challenge at AztecaWhat a test this would be for England. Mexico are the likeliest side to top Group A (47.8%) and will expect to defeat a third-place qualifier in the round of 32. That would mean England taking on Mexico in front of a partisan crowd at the Azteca in the capital.England's only previous World Cup meeting with Mexico came in similar circumstances, just with roles reversed. England were hosts when the teams met in the group stage in 1966, a match England won 2-0. Facing Mexico is far from a given, though. Group A does not contain any of the world's top 20 teams so could be very open and unpredictable.Quarter-final: The Brazilian HurdleAccording to the projections, England would most likely face Brazil in the quarter-finals on 11 July in New Jersey. Brazil have won the tournament five times – a record no other country can match – but they have not won it in 24 years. That wait is not as long as England's 60 years, though it's significant.If England progress to the semi-finals, there is a strong chance they will have to beat Brazil at an international tournament for the first time. England's previous four meetings with Brazil have seen them draw once, in the 1958 group stage, and lose in 1962, 1970 and 2002. A victory in the quarter-finals would take England into the semi-finals for just the fourth time.Semi-final: The Argentine Rivalry RenewedA win over Brazil could set up a semi-final with Argentina on 15 July in Miami. The Opta supercomputer projects that both Argentina and England will be two of the four teams in the World Cup semi-finals 9.2% of the time. For that to happen, both would have to win their group and then progress through three knockout rounds.England's previous World Cup clashes with Argentina have been packed with incident and controversy. This would be England's first tournament match against Argentina since David Beckham scored a match-winning penalty in their 2002 group-stage clash. To continue their journey in this tournament, England may have to do something that no other team has managed in World Cup history: beat Argentina in a semi-final.The Final: Breaking the Six-Decade DroughtShould England overcome these challenges, they would reach their first World Cup final since 1966. While the identity of their final opponent remains uncertain, the statistical analysis suggests that overcoming Argentina in the semi-final would be the most significant hurdle in their quest for glory. England have been eliminated in their last two World Cup semi-finals, losing to Croatia in 2018 and being defeated on penalties by West Germany in 1990. They have only played in one World Cup final and they won it.

China announced on June 4, 2026 that four New Zealand lawmakers are barred from entering the mainland for a year because of a May delegation to Taiwan. Beijing described the trip as a direct challenge to its “serious concerns” and warned of “serious adverse political impacts.” Wellington and Taipei have both condemned the move as interference in democratic parliamentary activity. Beijing’s Formal Ban on Four New Zealand Lawmakers The Chinese embassy in Wellington issued a statement accusing the lawmakers of ignoring repeated warnings and sending “wrong signals” to Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party. The ban targets three centre‑right MPs – Laura McClure, David Wilson, Maureen Pugh – and opposition Labour MP Duncan Webb. The embassy warned that anyone who “crosses the red line on the Taiwan question will face the consequences.” Numbers Behind the Sanctions: One‑Year Travel Restrictions Duration of ban: 12 months for each of the four MPs. Visit date: May 2026 (specific dates not disclosed). China’s trade volume with New Zealand (2023): roughly US$30 billion, making China New Zealand’s largest trading partner. New Zealand’s diplomatic stance: recognises the “one‑China” principle, treating Taiwan as a Chinese province. Repercussions for Sino‑New Zealand Relations Foreign Minister Winston Peters expressed surprise, noting that New Zealand MPs have visited Taiwan for decades without incident. He instructed officials in Beijing and Wellington to engage Chinese authorities to “express concern at this departure from past practice.” Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong also signalled concern, promising to raise the issue in Canberra. The ban arrives at a time when China remains New Zealand’s biggest trading partner, yet political scrutiny of Beijing’s influence in Wellington is growing. Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the ban as unlawful interference, emphasizing that “parliamentary diplomacy is a normal practice among democratic nations.” What the Ban Signals for Future Parliamentary Diplomacy Analysts see the sanction as a test of how far China will go to enforce its red line on Taiwan. If New Zealand’s MPs are required to apologise for the visit to have the ban lifted, it could set a precedent for future diplomatic pressure on foreign legislators. The episode may prompt other democracies to reassess the risks of parliamentary delegations to Taiwan, balancing democratic engagement against potential retaliation from Beijing. In the short term, the four MPs are barred from travel to China until June 2027 unless they issue an apology, as reported by Reuters. The longer‑term impact will depend on whether New Zealand chooses a conciliatory approach or reinforces its support for parliamentary exchanges with Taiwan.

Google is requesting federal approval to deploy a massive sterile‑insect technique in the United States, aiming to curb mosquito‑borne diseases without relying on chemical pesticides.Google’s Debug Program Requests EPA Approval for Massive Mosquito ReleaseThe tech giant, through its Debug initiative, has filed a notice with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to release up to 16 million sterile male mosquitoes annually in Florida and California, totaling 32 million over a two‑year period. The request is open for public comment until 5 June 2026.Scale of the Proposed Release and Expected Suppression MetricsAnnual target: 16 million sterile males per state.Technology: Males are infected with the naturally occurring bacterium Wolbachia, which prevents viable offspring when they mate with wild females.Previous results: In Singapore, releases achieved 80‑90% suppression of Aedes aegypti populations and a 70%+ drop in dengue cases within 6‑12 months.Potential Public‑Health and Environmental Implications for the U.S.By focusing on the Aedes aegypti species—responsible for dengue, Zika, yellow fever and chikungunya—Google hopes to lower disease incidence without the ecological drawbacks of broad‑spectrum insecticides. The approach also aligns with growing calls for sustainable vector‑control methods, though critics warn about ecological unknowns and the need for rigorous monitoring.What Success Could Mean for Future Vector‑Control StrategiesIf EPA grants the permit and field trials confirm Singapore‑style outcomes, the model could be replicated across other high‑risk regions in the U.S., potentially reshaping public‑health policy toward data‑driven, biotech solutions. A positive result may also accelerate private‑sector investment in similar sterile‑insect programs, expanding the role of AI and automation in entomological research.

Emergency Funding Fuels Three Vaccine CandidatesThe Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) announced $60 million in emergency grants to fast‑track three vaccine programmes targeting the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola. The funding is split among IAVI, Oxford University (in partnership with the Serum Institute of India), and Moderna, each racing to move from pre‑clinical work to human trials.Projected Timelines for Vaccine TrialsIAVI vaccine: WHO labels it the “most promising candidate”. Expected to enter clinical trials in seven to nine months, though IAVI aims to accelerate.Oxford vaccine (ChAdOx1 Bundibugyo): Leveraging the same platform as the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID‑19 jab, trials could start within two to three months pending animal data.Moderna vaccine: mRNA‑based candidate not yet on WHO’s list; pre‑clinical work could allow trial initiation within months after CEPI’s additional $50 million commitment.Financial Commitments and Their SignificanceThe combined $110 million from CEPI ($60 million emergency grant + $50 million for Moderna) underscores the urgency of a coordinated response. These funds cover pre‑clinical development, manufacturing scale‑up, and the logistical costs of conducting trials in a conflict‑affected region.Operational Challenges in the DRC and UgandaSecurity instability in eastern DRC—where militias have attacked Ebola treatment centres—has hampered trial set‑up and patient recruitment. Researchers, including Dr Richard Hatchett (CEPI CEO), stress that “every day counts” but note that safe trial execution depends on stabilising the environment and securing community trust.Potential Therapeutic Options Beyond VaccinesMonoclonal antibodies MBP134 and Maftivimab show promise in early studies.The antiviral remdesivir is being evaluated for efficacy against Bundibugyo.A novel prevention pill, obdeldesivir, demonstrated up to 100 % protection in monkey models when administered daily for ten days.Outlook: When Might Effective Countermeasures Arrive?If security conditions improve, the Oxford candidate could enter Phase 1 trials by late summer 2026, while IAVI’s schedule may see first‑in‑human dosing by early 2027. Moderna’s mRNA platform could follow a similar timeline, contingent on pre‑clinical results. Successful trials could lead to emergency use authorisations within a year of dosing, offering the first targeted tools against the Bundibugyo strain and informing preparedness for future Ebola outbreaks.

The Lead: Top Seed's Mental BreakdownAfter letting another big lead slip with an error-strewn performance at the French Open, top-ranked Aryna Sabalenka felt like getting as far away from the courts as possible. "Just want to quit tennis right now," Sabalenka said after wasting a lead of a set and two breaks in a 3-6, 7-5, 6-0 loss to Diana Shnaider in the quarterfinals.The Mental Collapse: From Victory to DespairSabalenka's wait for a first French Open title continues despite the four-time major winner leading 4-1 in the second set and being two points from victory while serving for the match at 5-4. What followed was a complete collapse as she lost 12 of the last 13 games against a player appearing in her first Grand Slam quarterfinal, looking increasingly frustrated and forlorn in the windy conditions."We'll see in a few days. Hopefully, I'll get back on track mentally," Sabalenka admitted after the match. "You know those rooms where you just go in and you smash everything. Probably I will spend a whole day over there destroying stuff. Maybe it will help, maybe not."Her struggles were reminiscent of the match against Coco Gauff in last year's final, when she won the first set before becoming undone with a slew of unforced errors. "I just have to sit back and openly think about what's going on in my head in those tough moments," Sabalenka said. "Because I'm quite an experienced player. I have been through so many things, and I [have] overcome so many things."The French Open Upset: A Tournament of SurprisesIt was another big upset in a tournament filled with them, with defending champion Gauff (third round) and four-time winner Iga Swiatek (fourth round) already out. Jannik Sinner, last year's men's singles runner-up, served for the match in a second-round defeat, and 24-time major winner Novak Djokovic wasted a two-set lead in a third-round loss.According to sports analytics company Opta, this year's French Open is the first major tournament without a former men's or women's singles major champion in the semifinals since the 1977 French Open. The unseeded Chwalinska came through three qualifying rounds to become only the second Polish woman to reach the semifinals at Roland Garros, along with Swiatek."It was such an impressive run, you know," Chwalinska said of British player Emma Raducanu's run to the 2021 US Open title as an 18-year-old qualifier. "Also, she was so young."The Path Forward: New Faces EmergeShnaider next faces Maja Chwalinska, who extended her remarkable Roland Garros run by beating 22nd seed Anna Kalinskaya 7-6 (3), 6-3. Chwalinska's total prize money heading into Roland Garros was $864,030, and reaching the last four here earns her 750,000 euros (about $872,000).In the men's quarterfinals, 10th-seeded Flavio Cobolli beat number four Felix Auger-Aliassime 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4 and will face fellow Italian Matteo Arnaldi for a spot in the final. Second-seeded Alexander Zverev and number 26 Jakub Mensik will meet in the other semifinal.For Sabalenka, the challenge now is not just physical but mental. "I just think it's [a] combination of everything," she lamented. "You overthink, then you make easy mistakes, then you miss opportunities."