Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Origins of 'Mogging' Until recently, if someone had said "mog" to me, I probably would have assumed they were talking about the children's book cat created by the late great Judith Kerr. If asked about "mogging" or being "mogged," I would have been completely baffled. But for many members of gen Z and gen Alpha (or anyone who is just a bit too online), the slang term, which means to outdo or outshine others, is everywhere. From Manosphere to Mainstream Mogging's origins are in the manosphere, where it began as a verb derived from the acronym "Amog" (alpha male of the group). In misogynistic forums in the 2010s, to "mog" came to mean to outdo someone in terms of sexual desirability. Mogging has been adopted by "looksmaxxing" influencers such as Braden Peters, known online as Clavicular, who encourage men to try to alter their looks – sometimes in extreme ways – to increase their "sexual market value". Such an influencer might talk of "frame mogging" another person in a photo or video – a variation on mogging that specifically refers to being more muscular. The Evolution of Competitive Language Even now, as the term has begun to be used much more widely, and in a tongue-in-cheek way, it is still typically associated with looks (a friend of mine, for example, was described by her boyfriend's younger siblings as "mogging him" in a photo). But increasingly, mogging can mean besting others at basically anything. The gold medal Olympic figure skater Alysa Liu said in an interview last year that her main competition strategy was "to mog", while a 23-year-old colleague of mine tells me that she and her friends joke about "walk-mogging" when they overtake people on the street. Linguistic Analysis of Modern Slang Tony Thorne, director of the slang and new language archive at King's College London, says a lot of new slang terms "have come recently from the same kind of male-based internet culture", referencing the words "simp" (someone who is excessively attentive), "soy boy" (a derogatory term for a man who is not stereotypically masculine) and "sigma" (someone cool and successful). Not to mention "maxxing," now such an established part of the lexicon that it was tweeted by the US Department of Defense earlier this year. The Cultural Impact of Competitive Slang Thorne thinks it is significant that "mogging" in particular has become fashionable at this time. "What it implies – hyper-competitive, hyper-individualist, aggressive selfishness" has become "mainstream behaviour", he says. Which is why Will Adolphy, a psychotherapist who was himself once an ardent follower of manosphere influencers, has concerns about the word. "Part of me can see how it's a kind of handy, even entertaining word," he says. But the idea of mogging "reinforces this sense that there are certain people that will dominate others based off their physical appearance and status", he says. Psychological Concerns About Competitive Language Dr Emily Sehmer, an NHS child and adolescent psychiatrist, worries too about the "constant sense of competition" that concepts such as mogging help to foster, especially for teenagers, who are developing their socio-emotional skills and typically "have a desire to fit in and to get peer approval". Apart from anything else, she adds, wanting to mog someone is "kind of mean, isn't it?" The Ironical Reappropriation of 'Mogging' "I think people are right to be concerned," about the rise in usage of slang that originates from a toxic subculture, Thorne says – and notes that some of his fellow linguists feel uncomfortable about researching it. But, he adds, "mogging" has moved well beyond its origins, and many people who use it now "tend to understand it and laugh at it, and they use it themselves, but ironically". Certainly, plenty of mogging content on social media now has an irreverence to it: such as the trend of posing for the photo on a rollercoaster in order to "mog" the screaming riders next to you. Making what started as an aggressive concept into something very silly pokes fun at the ridiculousness of the manosphere, my younger colleague explains. She shows me a picture of herself on a recent holiday, standing next to a statue of Napoleon, that she sent to a group chat of her friends. The caption? "I mogged Napoleon!"

Court Blocks Trump's Transgender Military BanA United States court of appeals has ruled that a policy under President Donald Trump to expel transgender troops from the military was a violation of the Constitution. Monday's decision was a split one among the three-judge panel of the US appeals court for the District of Columbia.One judge, Robert Wilkins, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, upheld a lower court ruling rejecting the Trump administration's policy as it pertains to already enlisted service members. A second judge – Judith Rogers, who was picked by former Democratic President Bill Clinton – agreed with his opinion, but only in part. She felt it should extend to those who seek to enlist, too.And the third judge, Trump pick Justin Walker, issued a dissent questioning the court's ability to second-guess US military policy.Origins of Trump's Controversial PolicyThe case focused on one of the earliest actions Trump took during his second term in office. On January 27, 2025, a week after his second inauguration, Trump issued an executive order called "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness".In it, he denounced the US armed forces as having been infiltrated with "radical gender ideology". He proceeded to describe transgender people as unfit for service for embracing a "false 'gender identity'"."A man's assertion that he is a woman, and his requirement that others honor this falsehood, is not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member," Trump wrote.The executive order became the basis for a 13-page Pentagon memorandum, issued in February 2025 under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. It declared that any service member who has "symptoms" of gender dysphoria, or who has used hormone therapy or surgery to affirm their gender, would be "disqualified from military service".Military Service Record of Transgender PlaintiffsIn Monday's ruling, Wilkins described the policy as blatantly discriminatory. The policy, he wrote, "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender"."To add insult, the President labeled transgender persons as dishonorable, undisciplined, arrogant, selfish liars," Wilkins added, pointing to the executive order.He pointed out that the transgender plaintiffs in the case had a combined 130 years of military service and had earned more than 80 commendations for their work.In the face of such evidence, Wilkins said the Trump administration had "forfeited any argument" that "retaining these service members will harm national security".Divided Rulings and Legal ImplicationsBut Wilkins stopped short of fully upholding a lower court ruling against the policy. Previously, Judge Ana Reyes had issued a temporary injunction against Trump's executive order, finding that the discrimination against transgender troops was unconstitutional.Wilkins agreed with Reyes that the Trump administration could not dismiss those already in the military's employ. But, he added, the harm was less for those seeking to enlist.Monday's ruling, therefore, strikes down the part of Reyes's injunction that would have barred the Trump administration from banning transgender people from the enlistment process.Rogers, the Clinton appointee, disagreed with that distinction. She pointed to testimony indicating that excluding transgender recruits from joining the military would deprive "our force of qualified personnel who have proven their ability to serve".Meanwhile, the dissent from the Trump appointee, Walker, hinged on his argument that the court had violated the separation of powers in the US government.Courts, he argued, should not be able to rule on the composition of the military."We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks," Walker wrote. "The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief."What Happens Next in the Legal BattleThe split decision is unlikely to have an immediate effect on US military policy. The appeals court has stayed the preliminary injunction from Reyes, as the legal fight continues, and last year, the US Supreme Court also halted an injunction against Trump's anti-transgender policy, in the case United States v Shilling.In a short, four-word social media post, Hegseth signalled that the Pentagon would appeal Monday's decision."See you at SCOTUS," he wrote, using the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States.But Democrats and LGBTQ+ advocates hailed the ruling as a victory against prejudice and discrimination in the Trump administration."No one who is qualified and answers the call to serve should be denied that opportunity because of who they are," US Representative John Larson of Connecticut wrote in a statement."Trump's trans military ban is discrimination — plain and simple. We'll keep fighting these attacks on our troops and all transgender Americans."

Escalating Outbreak in Eastern DRC Claims Another Young LifeIn the mining town of Mongbwalu, Sadiki Patrick, a 40‑year‑old father, lost his 15‑year‑old daughter Judith to the latest Ebola flare‑up. The tragedy underscores the human cost of a disease that has resurfaced 17 times in the past 50 years.Seventeenth Ebola Outbreak Highlights Systemic GapsAuthorities identified Mongbwalu as the epicentre of the new strain. Health workers report daily deaths, delayed hospital access, and insufficient qualified staff. International experts from the Africa CDC have deployed to Bunia to bolster response efforts.Numbers Reveal a Growing Crisis>500 suspected Ebola cases recorded by the Congolese Ministry of Health.>130 confirmed deaths linked to the current outbreak.Average of one outbreak every three years over the last five decades.Previous 2018‑2020 Zaire strain outbreak killed more than 2,300 people.Underlying Drivers: Healthcare, Conflict, and EnvironmentDoctors such as Francine Mbona Pendeza point to unsafe food practices, lack of clean water, and remote, under‑resourced clinics as key accelerants. Rodriguez Kisando adds that out‑of‑pocket costs block access to care, while geopolitical analyst Gloire Koko links the epidemic cycle to armed conflict that hampers humanitarian operations. Environmental factors—deforestation and wildlife contact—create a “natural habitat” for pathogens, according to virologist Alphonsine Muhoza.Path Forward: Strengthening Surveillance and Community ResilienceSave the Children’s DRC director Greg Ramm warns that without a proactive health communication strategy, the outbreak could spiral. Experts call for:Expanded primary‑care facilities in remote areas.Free or subsidised treatment to eliminate cost barriers.Community education on safe food handling and water hygiene.Enhanced surveillance systems, leveraging data collection and risk communication teams already on the ground.While virologist Jean Jacques Muyembe acknowledges past surveillance failures, he remains confident that “we will get it under control” with coordinated effort.

Lead: High‑Profile Intellectuals Mobilise Against Palestine Action BanOver 130 renowned writers, musicians, scholars and activists have signed a single‑sentence letter—"We oppose genocide, we support Palestine Action"—addressed to the UK Court of Appeal. The move is timed for the April 28‑29 hearings that will determine whether the government’s terrorist‑organisation label on Palestine Action stands.Public Figures Rally Behind Palestine Action Ahead of Court HearingThe open letter, released on Friday, bears 132 signatures and includes Sally Rooney, Greta Thunberg, philosopher Judith Butler, musicians Nadine Shah and Brian Eno, and writers such as China Miéville, Lina Meruane and Tariq Ali. Signatories span leading universities—Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Columbia and the London School of Economics—underscoring the breadth of academic and cultural opposition to the ban.Numbers Highlighting the Legal and Protest Landscape132 signatures on the letter.More than 130 public figures involved.Government designated Palestine Action a “terrorist organisation” in July 2025, equating it with Hezbollah and al‑Qaeda.Support for the group is punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment.Metropolitan Police arrested over 500 demonstrators earlier this month and have a record of > 3,000 arrests for similar expressions of support.Implications for UK Free Speech and Protest LawThe High Court’s February ruling that the ban was unlawful and disproportionate set a precedent, prompting the Met to pause arrests. However, the government’s appeal and the Met’s recent reversal—arresting protesters again—signal a potential tightening of enforcement. If the appeal succeeds, the legal risk for academics and artists expressing solidarity could rise sharply, chilling dissent and reshaping the UK’s protest jurisprudence.What the Upcoming Appeal Could Mean for Activism and Government PolicyLegal experts predict the Court of Appeal will weigh national security claims against fundamental rights to free expression. A upheld ban would reinforce a hardline stance, likely prompting further international criticism and galvanising more coordinated civil‑society campaigns. Conversely, a reversal could force the government to reconsider its terrorism‑designation framework, possibly leading to legislative reforms that better protect lawful protest.

Christine Baranski, known for her TV roles in The Good Fight and The Gilded Age, is set to make her West End debut in a revival of Noël Coward's comedy Hay Fever. She will star as Judith Bliss, a newly retired actor, alongside Richard E Grant, who will play her novelist husband.Baranski, a two-time Tony award winner for best featured actress in a play, expressed her excitement to “tear a passion to tatters” in the 1925 play about a family toying with their guests at a country house party. The production, directed by Emily Burns, will run at Wyndham’s theatre from 22 September to 12 December.Baranski described the play as a “101-year-old comedy of appalling manners” that requires “quicksilver delivery and suave flamboyance.” She also praised Grant as “whip-smart and wickedly funny.” This production marks a significant return to the theatre for Grant, who has recently appeared in supporting roles in films like The Thursday Murder Club and Nuremberg.The revival of Hay Fever is part of a recent surge in productions of Noël Coward's works, including Fallen Angels and Easy Virtue. Baranski's West End debut is a long-awaited event, with the actress having attended her first West End play in 1971 as a student at Juilliard.

Judith Rapoport, a leading child psychiatrist, passed away at 92, leaving a legacy defined by her groundbreaking work on obsessive‑compulsive disorder (OCD). Her 1989 book, The Boy Who Couldn’t Stop Washing, translated into more than twenty languages, presented complex research in a clear, jargon‑free style that resonated with a broad audience. OCD is characterized by compulsive rituals—re‑tying shoelaces, repeatedly checking switches, or incessant hand‑washing—that can dominate a person’s daily life. Before Rapoport’s book, many sufferers concealed their symptoms out of shame, unaware that they were not alone. Rapoport’s research demonstrated that OCD has a neurological foundation and may affect up to 2% of the population, challenging prevailing beliefs that it stemmed from overly strict parenting. She proved that the disorder can be hereditary and responsive to medication. In a pivotal 1989 double‑blind trial, she showed that the antidepressant clomipramine significantly reduced OCD symptoms, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve its use for the condition—a landmark moment in psychiatric treatment. Patients and colleagues credit her work with reducing stigma. "Reading Rapoport’s book washed away my shame," recalled Charles Gentz, who lives with OCD, while Professor Gabrielle Shapiro of the Icahn School of Medicine noted that the book “reduced the stigma for these people.” Rapoport herself reflected, “If my work alleviated just part of their pain, then it was not wasted time.” Born in New York City to a schoolteacher mother and a businessman father, she grew up with a literary lineage—her grandfather translated Ibsen into Yiddish. She excelled academically, graduating magna cum laude from Swarthmore College in 1955** and earning her medical degree from Harvard Medical School in 1959, where she met her husband, Stanley Rapoport. After early positions at Mount Sinai and the Massachusetts Mental Health Center, she and her husband secured fellowships in Sweden, conducting research at Uppsala University and the Karolinska Institute on women seeking abortions abroad. Returning to the United States, Rapoport joined the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) in 1976. There she led the institute’s child psychiatry branch from 1984, steering American psychiatry away from Freudian models toward a **biology‑focused** approach. Beyond OCD, she made significant contributions to the understanding of attention‑deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and childhood schizophrenia. Her 1978 study revealed that amphetamine improved concentration in both hyperactive and control children, contradicting the notion that stimulants only calm hyperactivity. Using MRI, she showed that childhood schizophrenia is progressive, involving loss of brain matter—a finding that shifted the focus from parenting to neurobiology. Rapoport’s expertise reached mainstream audiences through appearances on shows hosted by Oprah Winfrey and Larry King, further amplifying her message. By the time she retired in 2017, she had authored over 300 scientific papers, several books, and earned prestigious honors, including fellowship in the Institute of Medicine (1991) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2000). Colleague Gabrielle Shapiro described her as “a pioneer who turned child psychiatry into a modern, evidence‑based discipline.” Outside the laboratory, she enjoyed music, theatre, hiking, and gardening. She is survived by her husband, two sons, and four grandsons.

Last week, a coalition of more than 120 Christian leaders sent an open letter—published by The Guardian—to Sir Paul Marshall, the hedge‑fund manager who partly owns GB News. The letter accused the channel of spreading climate misinformation and called for full disclosure of any personal investments in fossil fuels, as well as transparency from GB News presenters and guests. Instead of addressing those transparency demands, Sir Paul replied in a Guardian letter, asserting that the “net‑zero consensus is crumbling.” This claim runs counter to multiple public‑opinion surveys that show a robust majority of Britons still favour decarbonisation efforts. What has shifted, analysts note, is that two of the United Kingdom’s major political parties now oppose a legally binding net‑zero target. Their stance does not appear to reflect public sentiment, prompting observers to question the motives behind the growing anti‑net‑zero rhetoric. Critics warn that as the nation’s reliance on expensive and volatile fossil fuels persists, the country edges closer to dangerous climate tipping points while households grapple with soaring energy costs. Rev Dr Darrell Hannah, chair of Operation Noah, described the situation as “curious and disheartening,” suggesting that GB News is intent on preserving an unsustainable status quo. London‑based commentator Judith Russenberger added that Sir Paul and his outlet ignore a wealth of scientific and economic evidence. She emphasized that the planet is heating faster than ever, not merely undergoing a “gradual warming phase,” and that the UK’s high electricity prices stem from a pricing system that ties power costs to the price of gas, rather than the cost of wind or solar generation. These challenges highlight a broader clash between media narratives, political positioning, and the public’s clear appetite for decisive climate action.

The race for the 2027 Oscars is already heating up, with several talented filmmakers and actors poised to make a strong impact. Aaron Sorkin, known for his acclaimed screenplays, is working on The Social Reckoning, a film focusing on the 2021 Facebook leak, which could earn him another Oscar nomination.Sandra Hüller, fresh from her success in Anatomy of a Fall and The Zone of Interest, is set to star in the $200m sci-fi adventure Project Hail Mary alongside Ryan Gosling. Her role in the upcoming cold war drama 1949 could also generate Oscar buzz.Charles Melton, who gained recognition for his performance in May December, is lined up for two festival-primed projects: Her Private Hell and Saturn Returns from Sing Sing. The latter, a sweeping romantic drama, could attract Academy attention.Japanese director Ryusuke Hamaguchi, who won nominations for Drive My Car, is working on a new film, a mix of French and Japanese influences, which could secure him another Oscar nod.Ruth Madeley, known for her roles in Doctor Who and Years and Years, is set to star in Being Heumann, a biopic about pioneering disability rights activist Judith Heumann, which could lead to her first Oscar nomination.Sebastian Stan, following his Golden Globe win for A Different Man and Oscar nomination for The Apprentice, will star in Fjord, a drama that could boost his chances of another Academy nomination.Octavia Spencer is set to star in a new adaptation of Death of a Salesman, which could earn her another Oscar nomination, given her track record of critically acclaimed performances.Jack O’Connell, after his success in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple and Sinners, will lead in Danny Boyle’s adaptation of Ink, a 60s-set Fleet Street drama.Parker Posey, who impressed in The White Lotus, has been cast in Martin McDonagh’s Wild Horse Nine, which is likely to receive Oscar nominations.Andrew Garfield will play OpenAI CEO Sam Altman in Artificial, a film about the behind-the-scenes drama at OpenAI, and also star in The Uprising, a historical drama about the English peasants’ revolt of 1381.