Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Blue Owl Capital, a leading private credit investment firm, has imposed a cap on withdrawals after investors attempted to redeem $5.4bn from two of its key funds. This move comes as a sign of dwindling confidence in the unregulated lending market.The New York-based firm revealed in filings that investors sought to withdraw 21.9% of the $20bn Credit Income Corp fund and 40.7% of its $3bn tech lending fund between January and March.The surge in redemption requests is attributed to growing concerns over potentially risky loans arranged by private credit firms, which operate outside the traditional regulated banking system. These firms are seen as particularly exposed to the AI spending boom.To manage the outflow, Blue Owl will limit withdrawals to 5% of the value of each fund per quarter. The firm stated that this decision was made to balance the interests of both withdrawing and remaining shareholders.Despite the increase in withdrawal requests, Blue Owl emphasized that underlying credit fundamentals across its portfolio have remained resilient. The firm attributed the surge in withdrawals to a period of heightened negative sentiment toward the asset class.The private credit industry has faced growing scrutiny over potentially weak lending standards, following a series of company failures, including Tricolor and First Brands. Regulators and industry experts have warned of potential ripple effects that could impact high street banks.The Bank of England's governor, Andrew Bailey, has cautioned against dismissing recent private credit failures as isolated incidents, citing concerns over transparency and potential risks across the sector.

Marine archaeologists from Denmark’s Viking Ship Museum announced the discovery of the Dannebroge, the Danish flagship that was destroyed by Admiral Horatio Nelson during the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801. The wreck lies 15 metres (49 feet) below the surface of Copenhagen harbour, buried in thick silt that offers almost zero visibility.Divers working in the murky conditions described the operation as a “race against time” because the site will soon be covered by Lynetteholm, a massive housing development slated for completion by 2070. The excavation, which began late last year, targets the exact spot where historical records place the Dannebroge’s final moments.Among the artefacts recovered are two cannons, period uniforms, insignia, shoes, bottles, and a fragment of a sailor’s lower jaw – possibly belonging to one of the 19 crew members still unaccounted for. “When a cannonball hits a ship, the splinters are the real danger, like grenade debris,” explained marine archaeologist Morten Johansen, underscoring the brutal conditions aboard wooden warships.The 48‑metre (157‑foot) vessel was Nelson’s primary target. Intense cannon fire ripped through its upper deck, and incendiary shells ignited a devastating fire that eventually caused the ship to explode, producing a roar heard across Copenhagen.Experts confirmed the wreck’s identity through dendrochronological dating, which matched the wood’s tree‑ring pattern to the year the Dannebroge was built. The size and shape of the recovered timbers also correspond with contemporary ship plans.Historical context: the 1801 battle was part of Britain’s effort to force Denmark out of a northern alliance with Russia, Prussia and Sweden. After a fierce exchange, Nelson offered a truce, and a cease‑fire was negotiated with Denmark’s Crown Prince Frederik.Marine archaeologist Marie Jonsson described the challenging dive conditions: “Sometimes you can’t see anything; you have to feel your way and rely on your fingers rather than your eyes.” The site remains littered with cannonballs, posing additional hazards for divers navigating the silt‑filled waters.The find not only enriches Denmark’s national narrative—often depicted in paintings and literature—but also provides a rare, tangible link to a pivotal moment in European naval history, just as modern development threatens to erase the physical remnants of that past.

The global oil market is being significantly influenced by online prediction platforms such as Polymarket, with energy traders using data from these platforms to inform their multimillion-dollar trades. Market experts have noted that Polymarket's datafeeds are being used to create algorithms that impact trading in the global Brent crude futures market. The growing reliance on Polymarket has raised concerns that anonymous account holders may be using insider knowledge to place bets, potentially influencing pricing in the global oil market. One energy trader noted that Polymarket had become the best predictor of the oil market's direction since the US-Israel war with Iran triggered a global oil crisis. Ajay Parmar, head of oil trading at ICIS, stated that betting markets have a long history of strong prediction accuracy, and traders are increasingly turning to Polymarket for market indicators. Tim Skirrow, head of derivatives at Energy Aspects, also confirmed the adoption of prediction markets as a trading tool, noting that any data with alpha is considered in modern markets. The US investment bank Goldman Sachs has included analysis of prediction-market data in its oil market research, and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) has launched a trading tool providing a data feed of Polymarket's prediction markets to help traders make informed decisions. However, not all commodity traders are convinced by Polymarket's track record in predicting market-moving events. One trading analyst noted that Polymarket has made bad calls during the crisis, and that hedge funds may be more interested in the platform than traditional traders.

The United States has been proposing unusual bilateral health agreements to developing countries, mostly in Africa, in exchange for access to sensitive health data and critical minerals. These deals have sparked concerns of exploitation and have been met with resistance from several countries.In November, the US approached Zimbabwean authorities with a proposal that would have provided over $300m in funding in return for sensitive health data. However, Harare felt that the negotiations were 'lopsided' and promptly pulled out.Zambia also pushed back against a similar proposal, citing 'problematic' clauses that sought access to the country's minerals, including copper, cobalt, and lithium. The US had offered $1bn in funding over five years, but Lusaka requested a review of the proposal.Several African countries, including Nigeria and Kenya, have signed the health pacts, but the terms agreed remain unclear.Data or mineral demands in return for health aid are unprecedented in the history of US-Africa relations. Policy experts argue that tying crucial funding to sensitive national assets could have negative consequences for African nations and the US itself.'Supporting global health has clear benefits to the United States in terms of prevention of pandemics that can affect Americans too,' said Sarang Shidore, Africa director at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'Linking such aid to payoffs in the extraction of critical minerals smacks of exploitative practices.'African nations have long relied on US funding to foot many of their health bills. In 2024, African countries received $5.4bn in US assistance, largely spent on humanitarian, health, and disaster needs.However, the US has argued that aid cuts suit its America First agenda, which prioritizes national interests. The stance has been met with criticism, with some economists arguing that aid is often ineffective and causes overreliance.Washington is now focused on government-to-government deals, which have typically required governments to take on an increasing share of their own health budgets in the next four to five years.Some analysts see this as a positive move to reduce overdependence on foreign funding and force governments to prioritize health spending in their budgets. However, the clauses that Washington is demanding to leverage its aid for data, rare earth elements, and other minerals have caused widespread outrage in some countries.In the case of Zambia, the US reportedly asked for access to the country's critical minerals in return for $1bn over five years. The US also asked for a one-way data-sharing agreement for 10 years.If Lusaka fails to ink a deal, US aid funding to the country will be discontinued, which could mean losing the remnants of funding Zambia still receives from the PEPFAR programme.

Iran has strongly denied US President Donald Trump's claim that the Iranian president has requested a ceasefire amid the ongoing conflict with the United States and Israel. A senior Iranian official stated that there has been no such request, contradicting Trump's post on social media.According to Al Jazeera's Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, the Iranian government is refuting Trump's claim, stating that they have not asked for any ceasefire. This development occurs as the US and Israel continue their military actions against Iran, leading to soaring global energy prices and widespread opposition among the US public.Trump's claim came just hours before he was scheduled to deliver a speech in Washington, DC, which the White House described as an 'important update on Iran'. In his social media post, Trump mentioned that his administration would consider the purported ceasefire request once the Strait of Hormuz is 'open, free, and clear'. He also threatened to continue 'blasting Iran into oblivion' until this condition is met.The ongoing conflict has raised serious concerns about a global economic downturn, particularly due to the critical nature of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas supplies transit. Experts, such as Mohamad Elmasry from the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, have expressed concerns over Trump's aggressive rhetoric and its implications for civilian infrastructure in Iran.Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher, reporting from the White House, suggested that Trump is unlikely to announce an immediate end to the war during his address. Instead, sources indicate that he may state the conflict will continue for a couple of weeks, acknowledging the financial strain on the public but framing it as a short-term pain.

India has launched the world's largest census, a monumental task that involves surveying over 1.4 billion people across the country's 28 states and eight union territories. The $1.24 billion exercise, which began on Wednesday, will take place over the next year, with more than three million officials collecting data on household composition, living conditions, and access to basic amenities.The census will be conducted in two phases. The first phase, known as the House Listing and Housing Census, will focus on gathering information on household characteristics, while the second phase will involve population enumeration and socioeconomic details, including caste enumeration for the first time since 1931.The inclusion of caste enumeration has sparked controversy, with some arguing that it will help address social and economic disparities, while others fear it will exacerbate existing divisions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government had initially resisted including caste questions, citing concerns about creating further social divisions.The census is crucial for policy planning and resource allocation, as it provides insights into demographic trends, housing conditions, and welfare amenities. However, experts have raised concerns about the delay in conducting the census, which has left significant data gaps and may impact the accuracy of surveys and policy decisions.There are also worries about how the census data will be used, particularly in light of the government's plans to implement a National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which have been criticized for potentially targeting Muslims and other marginalized groups.Despite these concerns, experts argue that the census is essential for understanding India's complex social dynamics and addressing the needs of its diverse population. Dipa Sinha, a development economist, emphasized that the census data will help governments plan policies and citizens claim their rights.The census is expected to conclude by March 31 next year, with the government facing pressure to ensure transparency and credibility in the data collection process.

A Russian-flagged tanker, the Anatoly Kolodkin, has arrived in Cuba with a cargo of 730,000 barrels of oil, marking the first oil tanker to reach the island in three months. The vessel, under US sanctions, was permitted to deliver fuel for humanitarian reasons.The tanker docked in the Bay of Matanzas, Cuba's largest supertanker and fuel storage port, on Tuesday. Much of the nearby city and the majority of Cuba were without power when the tanker arrived. Cuba has been experiencing an energy crisis, with President Miguel Diaz-Canel stating that the country has not received an oil tanker in three months.The fuel shipment is expected to provide breathing room for Cuba's communist-run government amid growing pressure from the US. The crude on board will take days to process domestically and turn into motor fuel and refined products. The ship is carrying Russian Urals, a medium sour crude, suitable for Cuba's ageing refineries.Cuba produces only 40 percent of its required fuel and relies on imports to sustain its energy grid. Experts estimate that the anticipated shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to meet Cuba's daily demand for nine or 10 days.The arrival of the tanker has been welcomed by Cubans, including Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy, who expressed gratitude to the Russian government and people for their support. The energy crisis in Cuba has led to long blackouts and severe shortages of food and medicine.

President Donald Trump has made a bold statement regarding the ongoing conflict with Iran, suggesting that the US could potentially end the war within two to three weeks. He emphasized that a deal is not a prerequisite for the US to withdraw from the conflict, indicating a possible shift in his diplomatic approach.Trump's comments come amid rising tensions and escalating energy prices, with domestic petrol prices in the US jumping past an average of $4 a gallon. The conflict has disrupted energy supplies and shaken the global economy, with Iran's attacks on Gulf oil facilities and its continued control over fuel supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which one-fifth of the world's oil and liquified natural gas passes.In a surprising move, Trump has criticized allied countries for not providing sufficient support in the conflict. He took aim at countries like the UK, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war. 'Go get your own oil!' he stated, emphasizing that the US wouldn't be there to help them anymore.Trump's statements have been met with caution by experts, who note that it would not be easy for him to simply walk out of a conflict that has spread across the region and resulted in thousands of deaths. Trita Parsi, a foreign policy expert, suggested that Trump's comments should be treated with skepticism, predicting that the timeline for the conflict would likely continue to be extended.The conflict has also drawn in other countries, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arguing that the war on Iran was 'definitely beyond the halfway point.' The situation remains volatile, with experts warning that Iran will continue to control the Strait of Hormuz and potentially continue to target it.

Donald Trump announced over the weekend that he wants to "take the oil in Iran" by seizing control of Kharg Island, the strategic outpost through which roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports flow. Experts say the remark underscores a blatant disregard for international law and exemplifies what they term “fossil‑fuel imperialism.” Patrick Bigger, co‑director of the Transition Security Project, described the approach as a "might‑makes‑right" logic that is both "abhorrent and spectacularly miscalculated." Trump is slated to give an update on the Iran‑U.S. conflict on Wednesday. He previously claimed the war could end within weeks, a statement that sent the stock market soaring on expectations of de‑escalation. Iran, however, has insisted it needs guarantees against future attacks before halting its counter‑offensive. The fighting continues, highlighted by an Iranian strike on a fully loaded crude tanker in Dubai and threats to "blow up and completely obliterate" Iran’s energy infrastructure if the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened promptly. Kharg Island, a five‑mile strip that handles the bulk of Iran’s oil shipments, along with its power plants and oil wells, has been singled out by Trump. He told the Financial Times that U.S. forces should take over the island and the oil stored there. "My favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran," Trump said, adding that critics in the United States are "stupid people." Amir Handjani, an energy lawyer at the Quincy Institute, warned that the statement "completely discredited" the war’s stated objectives and revealed a classic play for natural resources. Handjani noted that Trump’s desire to seize Iranian oil is not new; he voiced similar ambitions in a 1988 interview while promoting The Art of the Deal, saying he would "do a number on Kharg Island" if elected. The former president has also floated comparable ideas for Iraq, Syria and Venezuela, suggesting the United States could appropriate their oil to offset war costs or bolster strategic reserves. Handjani emphasized that international law provides no framework for waging war to capture sovereign nations' natural resources. From a military perspective, taking Kharg Island would be extremely challenging. Iranian missile defenses have rendered regional U.S. bases inoperable, meaning any assault would likely require a parachute insertion of Marines into heavy fire, with the risk of massive Iranian retaliation. Handjani warned that such retaliation could target oil export terminals across the Persian Gulf, potentially driving crude prices to $200‑$300 per barrel and destabilising the global economy. The conflict has already caused the largest-ever disruption to global energy supplies, killing thousands and sparking sharp fuel‑price shocks. While consumers bear the brunt, major fossil‑fuel companies are enjoying windfall profits. Bigger noted that higher oil prices benefit oil majors and are being used as a pretext to expand U.S. drilling, further entrenching reliance on carbon‑intensive fuels. According to Bigger, Trump’s rhetoric reveals a belief that "fossil fuels are a linchpin of his domestic industrial strategy," and that controlling oil equates to controlling global power. He argues that this mindset threatens the international order and hampers the transition to cleaner energy.