Search Results

Jeff_Bezos'_iconic_laugh.jpg: Steve Jurvetsonderivative work: King of Hearts, CC BY 2.0 While billions struggle to stay afloat, some quite literally, Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez are busy turning Venice into their personal playground of excess. This week, as they descend upon one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable cities in a flotilla of private yachts and chartered jets, the spectacle isn't just nauseating. It’s morally repugnant. Let’s be clear: they have the right to throw a wedding wherever and however they like. No laws are being broken. But we shouldn’t confuse legality with legitimacy, or wealth with worth. Bezos’s Venetian wedding, a rumoured €48 million orgy of extravagance, is a grotesque display of late-stage capitalism at its most depraved. It’s not just tone-deaf; it’s a megaphoned insult to a world on fire. The symbolism writes itself. Venice, a city literally sinking into the Adriatic Sea thanks to rising sea levels, is being used as a backdrop for a celebration paid for by a man whose fortune is built on a carbon-belching, warehouse-exploiting corporate empire. Amazon, the giant he built, emitted over 70 million metric tons of CO₂e in 2022,more than some small nations. But hey, at least the wedding favours are made of Murano glass. Let’s also talk about that €1 million “gift to Venice”, touted as a charitable gesture. For Jeff Bezos, that’s the financial equivalent of flicking a penny at a drowning man and expecting applause. His net worth hovers around $230 billion. If you earned $60,000 a year, it would be like donating less than a quarter to save a city. We are witnessing philanthropy as PR, a token to paper over what is fundamentally a ritual of obscene consumption. Defenders will say this is good for the local economy. A cash injection for hoteliers, caterers, water-taxi companies. But trickle-down decadence is not a model of social justice. Local Venetians are being priced out of their homes while billionaire weddings rent out entire districts for a long weekend of influencer selfies and champagne-fuelled nostalgia. Even the guest list is a caricature of elite detachment: Ivanka Trump, Oprah Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, those who speak of justice and climate on one hand while jetting around on the other. It's the ruling class cosplaying care while actively entrenching inequality and ecological collapse. This is not just a wedding. It's a manifestation of power, an unapologetic flaunting of the ability to bend cities, people, and even climate responsibility to one’s will. It’s Versailles on water. And just like Versailles, it’s built on the backs of those struggling to survive. When billionaires celebrate themselves in cities being swallowed by the consequences of their industries, it’s not a party. It’s a funeral for accountability. We are told, often and loudly, that we should admire these people. That they are visionaries. That they’ve "earned it." But wealth this excessive can only ever be accumulated through exploitation of workers, of the environment, of political systems that protect hoarding over redistribution. There is nothing admirable about it. There is only extraction. If Jeff Bezos truly wanted to honour Venice, he’d leave it alone. He’d pay his workers a living wage. He’d use his platform to tax wealth and decarbonise the economy, not to host foam parties aboard a $500 million superyacht named Koru. Until then, let’s call this wedding what it is: an emblem of grotesque inequality, a love letter to excess, and a middle finger to a world drowning in the very consequences of the billionaire class.

From haggis and Marmite to Kinder Eggs, there are everyday British staples that raise eyebrows (and red tape) overseas. Some of these familiar items are considered risky, unhealthy, or just plain illegal in countries like the USA and Canada, even though they’re part of everyday life in the UK. Here are six things that are completely normal in Britain — but are either banned, heavily restricted, or controversial abroad. 1. Haggis – Off the Menu in the USA Haggis may be divisive, but for many Scots (and those who appreciate a bit of tradition), it’s part of the national identity. Made from minced sheep offal — including lungs, which is the sticking point here — haggis has been banned in the US since 1971. The US Department of Agriculture considers sheep lungs unsafe due to the potential risk of contamination during slaughter. Even though millions of people in the UK eat it without issue, American regulations err on the side of caution. So if you're wondering, "Can you bring haggis into the US?" The answer is no. 2. Kinder Surprise – A No-Go in the States Yes, really. Those little chocolate eggs with the plastic toy inside are illegal in the US. According to FDA regulations, food products cannot contain non-edible embedded objects, due to choking hazards for children. While they’ve got a separate version called Kinder Joy (which splits the toy and chocolate into two compartments), it lacks the charm of the original. So if you're searching "Why are Kinder Eggs banned in the US?" It's all about safety laws. 3. Raw Milk – A Legal Grey Area Abroad In Britain, raw (or unpasteurised) milk is a niche but legal product, often sold at farm shops or directly from dairies. It’s appreciated for its richness and flavour, and seen by some as a more "natural" option. However, in many US states, Canada, and other countries, raw milk is either banned or tightly regulated. Public health authorities warn about the risks of bacterial contamination, including Listeria, E. coli, and Salmonella. So while it’s legal and available in the UK under certain conditions, in the US, it’s largely treated as a public health risk. 4. Marmite – Once Banned in Denmark Marmite is a uniquely British staple. But in Denmark, it was temporarily removed from shelves in 2011 because of its added vitamins and minerals, which hadn’t been pre-approved under Danish food regulations. It wasn’t banned due to any direct health risk; it simply didn’t meet bureaucratic requirements. So, "Is Marmite banned in Denmark?" Technically, it was, though it can now be found in limited quantities. 5. Irn-Bru (Original Recipe) – Banned in Canada Scotland’s iconic bright-orange soft drink, Irn-Bru, used to contain a synthetic dye called Ponceau 4R (E124). While permitted in the UK, it’s banned in Canada due to concerns about hyperactivity in children and allergic reactions. Though Irn-Bru has since been reformulated, the original recipe remains banned. So if you’re Googling "Is Irn-Bru banned in Canada?" — the answer is yes, at least in its original form. 6. Toys Inside Food – Not Allowed in the USA The US really doesn’t like surprises in its food, especially if they’re small plastic toys. Beyond Kinder Surprise eggs, any food product that contains a hidden non-edible object is considered a choking hazard and banned by the FDA. So even if something passes UK and EU safety regulations, in America it’s a no-go. That includes novelty sweets or promotional snacks with toys hidden inside. It’s interesting how the same everyday product can be perfectly acceptable in one country and completely banned in another. Whether it’s due to food safety concerns, bureaucratic red tape, or simply different cultural norms, these bans show just how subjective "safe" can be. So if you're travelling or posting a parcel abroad, it’s worth double-checking what’s allowed. That jar of Marmite or humble Kinder egg might just be contraband where you’re headed.

After over 10 months, a deal has been struck with voice actors. This agreement includes a pay raise and introduces "secondary performance payments," ensuring actors are compensated if AI uses their voice. The strike happened primarily because voice actors feared being replaced by AI, leading to less work and lower income. The core concern was AI's ability to replicate their voices. This deal means AI voice replication might become more common in games. Studios can now potentially use it with less backlash from actors, as compensation is guaranteed. However, it also means actors have less control over what their replicated voices say. AI could be used to make them say anything. This technology could enable dynamic NPCs whose dialogue changes for every player, responding in real-time and making each interaction unique. But it's not all positive. A significant problem with the deal is that actors retain the right to refuse permission for AI use of their digital replica at any time, especially during a strike. This means studios must halt any AI voice usage if an actor withdraws consent, particularly during labour actions. Furthermore, while actors will get paid more for AI usage, this increased cost must come from somewhere. This could lead to either: Decreased budgets elsewhere in the game (e.g., graphics, level design, gameplay features). Increased game prices, which many consumers already find too expensive. Long-Term Implications for Video Games and Actors One potential downside of the strike is that it may have inadvertently highlighted exactly why studios want to use AI: it's faster, cheaper, and doesn't require scheduling actors or waiting for them to come into work. By striking, actors made themselves more expensive and potentially seemed less reliable. Paradoxically, this could increase studios' motivation to replace them with AI in the long run, making the strike potentially shortsighted. The strike's long-term effect might actually harm the very people it was meant to help by emphasising the advantages AI offers producers. Only time will tell if this deal proves beneficial, as future negotiations, new laws, or technological shifts might change the landscape. We could also see increased public acceptance of AI voices as consumers experience (and continue to feel) the effects of the strike on game and movie releases. While this deal specifically covers video game actors, its structure and outcomes could influence how film and television actors approach their own negotiations regarding AI. What Does This Mean for You (the Gamer)? For you, this could lead to: Increased game prices. More of a game's budget being allocated to voice acting, potentially meaning less for other areas (like gameplay depth or visual polish). On the positive side: Actors, more confident they won't be replaced by AI without compensation, might deliver better performances. The end of the strike means fewer delays in game releases, so you get to play highly anticipated titles sooner.

In recent years, global tensions involving nuclear-armed states have drawn comparisons to the Cold War era. With renewed rivalries, advanced weapons technology, and evolving military doctrines, many wonder how close the world is to a potential nuclear crisis. Understanding the current landscape helps put these risks in perspective without causing undue alarm. The Devastating Power of Modern Nuclear Weapons Modern nuclear weapons remain among the most destructive forces on Earth. Unlike the bombs used in the 1940s, today’s warheads can be hundreds or thousands of times more powerful. Their precision delivery systems and multiple warheads allow for targeted strikes on key military or civilian infrastructure. However, despite their immense power, a single nuclear weapon would not be capable of destroying an entire country like the United Kingdom. While one bomb could devastate a major city and cause catastrophic loss of life, the broader population and infrastructure beyond the blast zone would remain intact. The risk of widespread destruction grows with multiple weapons targeted at various locations. Current Geopolitical Flashpoints Several regions today are at the centre of nuclear tensions: The conflict between Russia and NATO, highlighted by the war in Ukraine, has raised concerns. Russia’s doctrine allows for nuclear use if it perceives an existential threat, adding a layer of unpredictability. While a large-scale nuclear exchange remains unlikely, the risk of limited use is a serious consideration. South Asia remains a hotspot with a longstanding rivalry between India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed countries. Their history of conflict and territorial disputes means that escalation risks persist. North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. Its leadership’s rhetoric and testing program contribute to regional tensions on the Korean Peninsula. China, while maintaining a no-first-use policy, is modernising its nuclear forces amid rising tensions over Taiwan and the South China Sea. How Do Modern Nuclear Doctrines Influence Risk? Some military strategies and technological developments may increase the chance of nuclear use in a limited conflict. Tactical nuclear weapons, smaller and more ‘usable’ than strategic bombs, lower the threshold for deployment. Concepts like “escalate to de-escalate” suggest some countries might use limited nuclear strikes to force adversaries to back down. At the same time, improvements in missile defence and early warning systems can either deter or accelerate the risk of a pre-emptive strike. Cybersecurity threats to command systems also add complexity. The Role of Diplomacy and Arms Control Despite these risks, diplomatic efforts and arms control agreements remain vital to reducing nuclear dangers. The extension of the New START treaty between the United States and Russia in 2021 stands out as a key achievement. It limits deployed strategic warheads and fosters transparency through inspections and data sharing. This helps build trust and prevents unchecked arms build-up. International agreements like the Non-Proliferation Treaty create global norms against nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament, even if progress can be slow. Efforts to revive the Iran nuclear deal aim to prevent new states from acquiring nuclear weapons, contributing to regional and global stability. Additionally, crisis communication channels, nuclear risk reduction centres, and regional security dialogues all play roles in managing tensions and preventing misunderstandings. Challenges to Global Nuclear Stability The breakdown of some treaties, such as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty, has undermined parts of the arms control framework. Renewed missile deployments and reduced transparency have increased uncertainty. Ongoing conflicts and geopolitical distrust make negotiations more difficult. Modernisation of nuclear arsenals and new technologies often outpace diplomatic efforts. North Korea’s continued nuclear testing and missile launches further complicate efforts to reduce risk in East Asia. A Balanced View While the nuclear threat today carries unique challenges, it is important to remember that the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war act as a powerful deterrent. Most nuclear-armed states understand that use would be devastating for all parties involved. Diplomatic tools and international norms remain key to managing risks. Continued dialogue, treaty renewals, and confidence-building measures help keep the possibility of nuclear conflict low. Understanding the complexity of nuclear tensions without fear allows for informed public discussion and supports the efforts aimed at a safer future.

In a sleepy corner of Shropshire, a perfectly ordinary-looking terraced house has become an internet sensation. Why? Because it hides a feature so bizarre, so completely without shame, that it has left property watchers everywhere rubbing their eyes in disbelief. Illustration of the Shropshire Landing Toilet At first glance, the house on Birch Road in Ellesmere looks like your typical modest two-bed. Smart little brickwork. Modest garden. Standard price tag of £124,000. But click through the Rightmove listing, and there it is, staring you in the face from the top of the stairs. A fully exposed toilet. No walls. No door. No screen. Just a loo. Positioned proudly on the landing like a misunderstood modern art installation. As if the architect simply gave up halfway through a renovation and thought, “That’ll do.” A New Low for “Open Plan”? The property listing describes the house as “characterful” and “quirky” which, let’s be honest, is estate agent-speak for “deeply unwise but we’re trying our best here.” The toilet in question sits directly outside one of the bedrooms, visible from the landing, the stairs and likely from the kitchen if the door’s open. It raises more than hygiene concerns. It raises the question of whether we’ve collectively lost the plot when it comes to property expectations in Britain. Check out all the photos on the Sun Article Are We Laughing or Crying? On social media, the jokes came quickly. “Open plan’s gone too far,” one Reddit user quipped. “I genuinely have nightmares like this,” said another. But behind the humour is a growing frustration with a housing market that has become surreal. In a country where the average house price is creeping past affordability for most young people, this six-figure absurdity feels like a bad punchline. A toilet without walls might seem like a once-in-a-lifetime oddity, but it’s part of a wider pattern. We are being asked to lower our standards more and more. Walk-in wardrobes are replaced by just wardrobes. Gardens become courtyards. Kitchens shrink. And now bathrooms? Apparently optional. The Estate Agent Gloss What makes this all the more galling is that the estate agent has tried to pass the whole thing off with cheerful language. The photos don’t shy away from it. The loo is shown proudly, as if it’s some kind of premium feature. No apology. No explanation. Just the British stiff upper lip in bathroom form. And someone, somewhere, is likely to buy it. Because in today’s property market, your choices are shrinking. If you want affordability, you might have to compromise on little things. Like privacy. Or plumbing logic. The Big Picture This toilet, ludicrous as it is, tells a serious story. One about how buyers are being forced to accept things that were once laughable. It also says a lot about the culture of estate agents and how the focus has shifted from function and livability to marketing gymnastics. It’s not just about a weird toilet. It’s about what we’ve come to expect from homes and the lengths sellers and agents will go to spin those expectations into a sale. If you’re in the market for a bathroom that’s also a hallway, you might have just found your dream home. For everyone else, it’s a stark reminder of just how unrecognisable the property ladder has become. And no, we still don’t recommend installing a toilet next to your staircase. No matter how “quirky” it sounds.

VoltAero, the pioneering French aerospace company, is changing the game for general aviation with its cutting-edge hybrid-electric powertrain, the HPU 210. Aimed at light aircraft and kit-builders, this innovative system brings together the flexibility of combustion with the efficiency and environmental benefits of electric propulsion. As sustainable aviation takes centre stage globally, the HPU 210 is rapidly becoming a front-runner in Europe’s race to decarbonise the skies. What is the HPU 210 — and Who Are VoltAero? VoltAero is an ambitious firm based in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, led by aviation veterans including former Airbus CTO Jean Botti. With their hybrid-electric aircraft series Cassio under development, VoltAero is not only creating planes but also offering its powertrain tech as a standalone unit for retrofit and OEM use. The HPU 210 is the company’s flagship propulsion module. It combines: A 150 kW Kawasaki internal combustion engine A 60 kW Safran electric motor A single, integrated gearbox and power distribution unit This configuration allows for flexible operation in electric-only, combustion-only, or combined modes, making it ideal for reducing fuel usage during taxiing and initial climb while still delivering reliable long-range cruising. Designed to support aircraft in the 4–6 seat range, the HPU 210 is being marketed as a complete, kit-ready solution for aircraft developers, experimental builders, and light aviation innovators. VoltAero has already proven the HPU 210’s capability through over 185 flight hours and 25,000 km of testing aboard its Cassio 1 demonstrator aircraft. Comparing the Competition: Ampaire and Pipistrel To understand how VoltAero stacks up, it’s worth comparing it to other leading hybrid and electric propulsion developers: Ampaire and Pipistrel. Ampaire Ampaire, based in the US but active in the UK via Loganair’s Orkney routes, has been retrofitting existing aircraft with hybrid systems. Their Electric EEL and Eco Caravan use parallel hybrid designs to offer fuel savings of up to 70% on short legs. These systems are aimed squarely at commercial use, with retrofitting costs estimated between £250,000 and £500,000. While Ampaire offers strong fuel savings and lower emissions, their focus is on fleet operators rather than private pilots or kit-builders. The certification processes are well underway, with trials demonstrating real-world savings in fuel and emissions. Pipistrel Slovenian manufacturer Pipistrel has carved a niche in electric flight. Their Velis Electro was the first electric aircraft certified by EASA. It’s a popular choice for training schools due to its incredibly low running cost (as little as €1 per flight hour in electricity) and whisper-quiet operation. Their Panthera project, available in petrol, hybrid, and electric variants, is aimed at more capable private aircraft. However, range and payload limitations in full-electric configurations remain a challenge. The Velis Electro, for instance, is restricted to short flights of 30–50 minutes. Where VoltAero Fits VoltAero’s HPU 210 finds its sweet spot between these two. It offers more range and power than Pipistrel’s electric trainers while being more accessible and flexible than Ampaire’s heavy-duty commercial solutions. Designed with both efficiency and endurance in mind, it suits ambitious kit builders and OEMs looking to embrace the next chapter of low-emission aviation. Cost Analysis: Upfront and Long-Term The HPU 210 is expected to retail between £150,000 and £250,000, depending on configuration and distribution. While this may seem steep for a kit builder, the integrated system includes everything from combustion and electric motors to electronic control units, gearboxes, and supporting systems. Running Costs Fuel consumption averages around 38 litres per hour in combined operation. Given the flexibility to run on avgas, unleaded petrol, or biofuels like E85, UK operators have multiple cost-saving options. At current fuel prices, this equates to roughly £50 per hour. The electric motor allows for further savings during start-up, taxiing, and short climbs. Maintenance savings are another key consideration. Hybrid operation reduces the workload on the combustion engine, potentially extending the time between overhauls. The expected TBO (Time Between Overhaul) is over 1,500 hours, a solid figure in general aviation. Payback Estimates Scenario Assumed Annual Hours Fuel Saving (vs petrol-only) Estimated Payback Period Light recreational use 100 15% 7–9 years Moderate club flying 250 20–30% 5–7 years High-utilisation training 500 30–40% 3–5 years While not every club or private flyer will immediately benefit, those with moderate to heavy usage will likely see the cost offset within a reasonable time frame. Factor in environmental impact, fuel availability, and potential future regulatory incentives, and the HPU 210 becomes a compelling proposition. VoltAero’s HPU 210 could very well be a turning point in hybrid aviation. It gives kit-builders and OEMs access to certified-grade technology with plug-and-play simplicity. In a market still figuring out how to balance endurance, emissions, and affordability, VoltAero has struck a promising middle ground. With proven test flights, bold commercial ambitions, and clear advantages over more niche or commercial-only systems, the HPU 210 may be the kit builder’s ticket to cleaner skies and longer, cheaper flights.

The ongoing unrest in Los Angeles has escalated, with President Donald Trump deploying the National Guard and Marines in an attempt to clamp down on protests. This move has drawn criticism, particularly after images surfaced showing Guardsmen sleeping on cold floors in public buildings—images that quickly sparked outrage. But this article isn’t really about that. Well, not directly. What’s more concerning is what happened next. As these images began circulating online, a troubling trend emerged. People started questioning their authenticity, not based on verified information or investigative journalism, but on what artificial intelligence told them. Accusations of “fake news”, “AI-generated images”, or “doctored photos” spread rapidly. Rather than consulting reputable sources, many turned to AI tools to determine what was real. And they trusted the answers without hesitation. These AI models, often perceived as neutral, trustworthy, and authoritative, told users that although the images were real, they weren’t recent. According to the models, the photos dated back to 2021 and were taken overseas. The implication? They had nothing to do with the situation unfolding in Los Angeles. People believed it. Anyone suggesting otherwise was dismissed as misinformed or biased. The idea that these images were being used to fuel an anti-Trump agenda gained traction, all because an algorithm said so. But there’s one major flaw: the AI was wrong. These images didn’t exist online before June 2025. They aren’t from 2021. They weren’t taken abroad. They are, in fact, current and accurate, just as the original reports stated. But because AI tools misidentified them, many dismissed the truth. This isn’t just a harmless mistake; it’s a serious issue. We are placing too much trust in machines that cannot offer certainty. These tools don’t rely on real-time data or fact-checking methods; they generate responses based on probabilities and patterns in the data they’ve been trained on. And when those outputs are flawed, people can be dangerously misled. So what happens when more and more people begin to trust AI over journalists, subject matter experts, or even their own eyes? We risk entering a reality where truth is no longer defined by facts, but by algorithms—where something can be deemed false not because it lacks evidence, but because a machine didn’t recognise it. If we reach that point, how do we challenge power? How do we uphold accountability? How do we know what’s real? AI is a remarkable tool. But it is just that—a tool. And when tools are treated as infallible, the consequences can be far-reaching. If we blindly trust AI to define our reality, we may find ourselves living in a world where facts are optional, and truth becomes whatever the machine decides it is.

After months of speculation and mounting anticipation, Nintendo has launched the Switch 2 in the UK and globally, marking a significant step forward for the Japanese gaming giant. The hybrid console, which was released on 3 June, has already become Nintendo’s fastest-selling device, shifting over 3.5 million units in just four days . The console launched in the UK at £379.99 for the standard edition , with the “Deluxe Set” bundling in Mario Kart World and enhanced Joy-Con controllers for £429.99 . Despite the hefty price tag, retailers reported widespread sell-outs within hours of release. GAME and Argos saw queues online and in-store, with some high street stores reporting stock shortages through the first weekend. "The screen is beautiful, the new Joy-Cons feel far sturdier, and I love how snappy the menus are." Jason Webb, a gamer from Leeds Launch Line-Up and New Features The Switch 2 arrived with a launch line-up headlined by Mario Kart World , Pikmin 5 , and Splatoon Nova , with The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of the Depths  set to follow in July. The console features a brighter 1080p OLED display with a 120Hz refresh rate, upgraded internal storage, and improved detachable controllers. Nintendo has also introduced GameChat, its first in-built voice and video chat system, seen by many as a long overdue step into modern multiplayer gaming. Early Market Jitters Now Easing When Nintendo confirmed the console back in January, investors were not immediately convinced. Shares dipped nearly 7 per cent in Tokyo, with analysts criticising the reveal as thin on detail. The company was tight-lipped about the price, backwards compatibility, and exact release date, leading some to worry that Nintendo was not ready to compete with devices like the Steam Deck or PlayStation Portal. However, as pre-orders sold out in April and early reviews trickled in, investor confidence returned. By late May, Nintendo’s stock had climbed to record highs, with analysts from Jefferies and Goldman Sachs issuing strong buy recommendations. Goldman expects long-term growth from the console, forecasting that it could sell over 60 million units during its lifespan. What Users Think of the Switch 2? Despite commercial success and analyst optimism, the Switch 2 has divided opinion among users. While many in the UK gaming community have praised the device as a worthy successor, others feel it fails to justify its premium price or fully resolve lingering issues from the original console. The Good For those upgrading from the original Switch, the improvements are tangible. "The screen is beautiful, the new Joy-Cons feel far sturdier, and I love how snappy the menus are," said Jason Webb, a gamer from Leeds who picked up his Switch 2 on launch day. Online forums and subreddits have filled with praise for the display, improved load times, and the seamless nature of GameChat. Others have applauded Nintendo’s decision not to reinvent the wheel. “It’s exactly what I wanted – more power, better battery, and still the same pick-up-and-play feel,” wrote one user on r/NintendoUK. The Bad However, not everyone is impressed. A common criticism has been the console’s high price, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis. “£429 for a new console when I still have a perfectly good Switch? Nintendo’s taking the mickey,” said Sarah Khan, a student in Manchester. Battery life has also come under scrutiny. Some users reported shorter-than-expected play times during launch week, prompting Nintendo to acknowledge a software bug that would be addressed in a future update. There have also been concerns about the magnetic controller attachments. “The little nub is already bending, and I’ve only had it a week. My kid snapped the last one in two months,” one frustrated parent shared on Facebook. Another sore point is the sense that the Switch 2 is more of a refinement than a revolution. “It feels like a Switch Pro, not a new generation. Where’s the wow factor?” Reddit user @WanderingPlumber. The Road Ahead Despite some early growing pains, the Switch 2 is off to a flying start. It has reignited interest in physical game releases, brought Nintendo back into the conversation around social and multiplayer innovation, and won over a loyal base of fans who see it as the best version of the console to date. As the console heads into its second month, all eyes will be on Nintendo’s software pipeline. With the promise of a new Zelda , Pokémon Revival later this year, and strong third-party support, the Switch 2 may yet prove to be more than just a refresh. But with rivals looming and expectations sky-high, Nintendo has little room for error. Whether the Switch 2 becomes a long-term game-changer or a short-term spike remains to be seen. What’s clear for now is that it has already made its mark.

As of Monday morning UK time, Los Angeles remains gripped by unrest following a weekend of violent protests, dozens of arrests, and the deployment of National Guard troops.  The city has become the epicentre of a fierce national debate over immigration enforcement and federal authority, with demonstrators taking to the streets in response to a wave of controversial raids carried out by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Authorities say nearly 40 people have been arrested across the city since Friday, with violent confrontations between protesters and police erupting around key sites, including the 101 freeway and federal buildings downtown. How the Los Angeles Protests Turned Violent Initially peaceful, the protests escalated dramatically on Sunday evening. Demonstrators reportedly hurled concrete, bottles, and fireworks at officers, while law enforcement responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, and stun grenades. Several journalists were caught in the crossfire. Australian television reporter Lauren Tomasi was struck live on air by a rubber bullet, prompting international outcry. A British photojournalist suffered serious injuries requiring emergency medical care. City officials have described scenes of chaos, with Molotov cocktails being thrown and parts of the city centre barricaded by protest groups. Many of the protesters accuse federal authorities of targeting immigrant communities unfairly, describing the raids as aggressive and discriminatory. Why ICE Raids Sparked the Outrage The trigger for the unrest was a series of ICE raids that began early Friday. Officials described the operation as a focused effort to detain undocumented immigrants with outstanding deportation orders or known criminal records. However, numerous witnesses and advocacy groups allege that ICE agents went far beyond this remit, detaining individuals without clear cause and separating families in the process. Social media videos appeared to show people being stopped in car parks, outside schools, and in residential neighbourhoods. Advocacy groups claim the tactics used were deliberately designed to intimidate and destabilise communities. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has already announced plans to challenge the legality of the raids, calling them "unconstitutional and deeply unethical." A Divided Political Response California Governor Gavin Newsom has taken a defiant stance, condemning the federal deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles without his consent. "This action is unlawful. It undermines our state’s authority and further escalates an already volatile situation," he said on Sunday. Newsom has requested the immediate withdrawal of federal forces and is preparing legal action to challenge the decision. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass voiced similar concerns, stating that the city’s own police force was "fully capable of handling any necessary public safety response" without military intervention. On the other side of the political spectrum, the federal government insists that its actions are both lawful and necessary. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated the deployment is intended to protect federal buildings and personnel from what he described as "violent insurrectionist mobs." Former President Donald Trump praised the move, declaring that "Only strong action can restore order when radical left agitators try to control our streets." The political divide over the events in Los Angeles reflects deeper national disagreements over immigration policy, protest rights, and the extent of federal power. What is ICE and What Does it Do? US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security. It was created in 2003 following the 9/11 attacks, with a broad mandate to enforce immigration laws and protect the country from cross-border threats. ICE operates two main branches: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which focuses on transnational crime, and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which handles the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants. While the agency argues that it plays a critical role in maintaining law and order, it has long drawn criticism from civil rights groups, who accuse it of using overly aggressive tactics and targeting vulnerable communities. The debate over ICE’s powers and accountability remains one of the most divisive issues in American politics today. What Happens Next? The situation in Los Angeles remains tense. National Guard troops continue to patrol key locations, with an additional 500 Marines reportedly on standby at Camp Pendleton in case of further escalation. Legal battles are now brewing in both federal and state courts, and protests are expected to continue throughout the week. As the city braces for further demonstrations, attention turns to whether the situation will stabilise or deepen the rift between state and federal authorities.

Ukraine has carried out a far-reaching and highly coordinated drone strike deep within Russian territory, targeting five key airbases and reportedly damaging or destroying dozens of military aircraft. The attack, codenamed Operation Spiderweb , marks one of the most ambitious and technologically advanced operations of the war to date. Wave of Drones Strikes Multiple Time Zones Launched on 1 June, the Ukrainian assault struck airbases across five time zones, including locations as far east as Siberia and the Arctic. The bases identified include Belaya , Dyagilevo , Ivanovo Severny , Olenya , and Ukrainka . These facilities are home to Russia’s long-range bomber fleet, including the Tu-95 and Tu-22M aircraft, which have been used extensively to carry out missile attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure since the full-scale invasion began in 2022. According to Ukraine’s Security Service (SBU), 117 drones were deployed in the attack, many of which were launched from within Russian territory using improvised launch stations hidden in commercial shipping containers. The drones were reportedly equipped with explosive payloads and sophisticated artificial intelligence navigation systems, enabling them to evade radar, electronic jamming, and conventional air defences. Satellite images released in the aftermath of the strike appear to confirm significant damage to aircraft and facilities at multiple airfields. Independent analysis of the images suggests at least ten strategic aircraft have been destroyed , while dozens more were damaged. Ukraine claims that 41 aircraft  were affected in total. These claims have not been independently verified, although U.S. officials have confirmed a major disruption to Russian air power. See the satellite imagery and analysis here: How the Operation Was Carried Out Ukrainian officials have not disclosed the full technical details of the operation. However, sources within Western intelligence suggest that many of the drones were concealed within camouflaged containers  planted inside Russian territory weeks or even months prior to the attack. These mobile launch platforms were likely activated remotely or via pre-programmed timers. Each drone was fitted with an artificial intelligence guidance system capable of processing terrain data and avoiding obstacles or interception. By flying at low altitude and dispersing over a wide area, the drones successfully penetrated the layered Russian air defences which are primarily oriented against traditional missile or aircraft threats. The strategic intent was to undermine Russia’s ability to launch aerial missile attacks from deep within its own borders and to demonstrate that no target is beyond reach. The operation also served a psychological purpose, reminding the Kremlin and the Russian public that the interior of the country is no longer immune to Ukrainian action. Russian Retaliation Begins In response, Russia has launched a series of retaliatory drone and missile strikes  on Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Dnipro. These attacks have hit power infrastructure and civilian areas, resulting in casualties and renewed blackouts in several regions. The Russian Defence Ministry has framed these strikes as direct retribution for what it calls a “terrorist act” carried out by Ukrainian intelligence services. In addition, Russian domestic security forces, including the FSB, have begun sweeping internal crackdowns , reportedly detaining dozens of individuals suspected of collaborating with Ukrainian operatives or harbouring contraband. There are also unconfirmed reports of new security protocols being enacted near sensitive military sites, including additional surveillance of cargo transit routes. What Might Happen Next While immediate military retaliation is already underway, analysts believe Russia is likely to respond with a multi-pronged strategy in the coming weeks. This could include enhanced electronic warfare  capabilities to counter Ukraine’s AI-guided drones, the rapid deployment of additional air defence systems around key assets, and the acceleration of Russia’s own drone warfare programmes. There are concerns that Moscow may also escalate its campaign against Ukrainian territory more broadly, potentially expanding its focus beyond military targets to include deeper civilian or economic infrastructure. Russian officials have also raised the spectre of increasing troop mobilisation or authorising additional military operations in contested regions. From a diplomatic standpoint, Russia is expected to amplify accusations against the West, particularly the United States and NATO allies, for what it alleges is Western support for these advanced drone systems. Although there is no confirmed link between this operation and any specific Western supplier, such accusations could fuel further geopolitical tension and increase calls within Russia for a more hardline war policy. Despite the scale of the retaliation, many observers see Operation Spiderweb as a watershed moment in modern asymmetric warfare. The strike not only disrupted a key element of Russia’s strategic air campaign but also highlighted the evolving nature of drone warfare in the twenty-first century, where inexpensive, intelligent systems can deliver results once thought to require full-scale invasions. As the war grinds on, Ukraine’s ability to innovate and strike beyond the front lines may prove as strategically significant as any single battlefield gain.

It’s hard to believe, but it has now been two decades since a single battle cry, half panicked and half heroic, echoed through the digital halls of the internet and permanently lodged itself in pop culture. “Leeeeeroy Jenkins!” may not mean much to the uninitiated, but for millions of gamers and meme historians alike, it marks a turning point in online comedy, gaming culture, and the very nature of viral fame. The iconic video that spawned the phrase was first posted online on 11 May 2005, back when YouTube was still in its infancy and Facebook was only just expanding beyond university campuses. Despite the limited channels of the time, the clip travelled fast. It didn’t just go viral. It became one of the earliest and most beloved internet memes, its reach eventually stretching far beyond the gaming world. To understand why a man screaming his own name before ruining a virtual raid became internet legend, we need to look at where it all began: inside a game called World of Warcraft. The World Behind the War Cry World of Warcraft, often referred to as WoW, launched in November 2004 and quickly became a global phenomenon. It was a massive multiplayer online role-playing game, a genre where thousands of players could share the same virtual world, exploring, fighting monsters, and going on epic quests. Created by Blizzard Entertainment, WoW allowed players to step into the fantasy world of Azeroth, a realm filled with dragons, demons, ancient ruins, and warring factions. What made WoW so popular was not just the scope of its world but the way it brought players together. Whether you were a night elf rogue sneaking through forests or a human paladin defending distant kingdoms, you were rarely alone. Players formed guilds, teamed up for challenging dungeons, and spent countless hours building their characters. It combined storytelling, strategy, social interaction and just the right amount of chaos. By the time the Leeroy Jenkins video emerged in May 2005, WoW had already attracted millions of players. It was well on its way to becoming the most successful online game of its era. The Birth of a Legend The video that turned Leeroy Jenkins into a household name started, fittingly, in one of WoW’s dungeons. A guild named PALS FOR LIFE had gathered to tackle a high-level raid called Upper Blackrock Spire. The recording shows the group standing at the entrance to a particularly tricky room, methodically discussing strategy and calculating their chances of survival. Midway through the discussion, one player who had stepped away from his keyboard returned and, seemingly unaware of the plan, charged into the room shouting his own name. “Leeeeeroy Jenkins!” he yelled, before vanishing into battle. The group fell into disarray. Someone let out a desperate “Oh my God, he just ran in,” and what followed was a complete failure. Monsters overwhelmed them. Players panicked. The whole carefully planned mission collapsed in seconds. As the dust settled, Leeroy offered a final comment. “At least I have chicken.” At first glance, the clip looked like a simple recording of a failed raid. In reality, it was a staged sketch meant to poke fun at the overly serious tone of raid planning. But it was so convincing, and so perfectly timed, that viewers around the world assumed it was genuine. The humour, the chaos, and the strangely relatable energy of Leeroy’s impulsive charge made it instantly shareable. From Obscure Joke to Global Meme Within days of its release, the video had spread across gaming forums, email chains and message boards. It became a punchline, a catchphrase, and a cultural reference point. Even people who had never played WoW started recognising the name. The gaming community embraced Leeroy Jenkins as a kind of folk hero. He represented every player who had ever rushed into a fight without reading the instructions, every teammate who pressed the wrong button, and every friend who ruined the plan in the funniest possible way. Ben Schulz Blizzard, the creators of WoW, soon acknowledged the meme inside the game itself. They added a special achievement titled “Leeeeeeeeeeeeeroy!” for players who managed to recreate the infamous charge. At WoW fan events, Leeroy’s name was shouted from the crowd. The man behind the voice, Ben Schulz, became a minor celebrity, appearing at conventions and giving interviews about his unexpected internet fame. The meme’s reach didn’t stop at gaming. Leeroy Jenkins was referenced on shows like South Park and The Daily Show. In 2010, Marvel Comics paid tribute in a Deadpool issue, where the wisecracking anti-hero screamed “Leeroy Jenkins!” as he hurled himself into battle. Even Jeopardy! once featured Leeroy as a clue. Leeroy Jenkins, A Lasting Legacy What made the Leeroy Jenkins meme so enduring was its timing. It arrived just as the internet was beginning to change. YouTube was new, social media was growing, and people were starting to realise how quickly a funny clip could become a global joke. Leeroy was part of a generation of early internet content that spread by word of mouth, shared not through algorithms but by sheer amusement. Today, gaming videos are a thriving industry. Streamers, content creators and esports professionals fill platforms like Twitch and YouTube with carefully edited highlights and monetised commentary. But back in 2005, it was a different world. Leeroy Jenkins wasn’t planned for fame. That spontaneity is part of what still makes it so memorable. As the meme turns twenty, it has taken its place in the history books of internet culture. The graphics may look dated now, and the audio may be grainy, but the spirit of it all lives on. It’s a reminder that sometimes, chaos is funny. Sometimes, charging in blindly is more fun than waiting for the perfect plan. And sometimes, shouting your own name is enough to make history. So here’s to Leeroy. Twenty years later, we still haven’t forgotten.

In the heart of Central Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a land of paradoxes. Beneath its lush landscapes lie vast reserves of minerals - cobalt, coltan, gold, and tin - that are essential to the global technology and renewable energy industries. Yet, this abundance has not translated into prosperity for its people. Instead, the competition for control over these resources has perpetuated cycles of violence, displacement, and economic exploitation. The Resource Curse: Wealth That Breeds Conflict The DRC's mineral riches have long been both a blessing and a curse. While they hold the promise of economic development, they have also attracted a myriad of armed groups vying for control. The M23 rebel group, allegedly supported by Rwanda, has seized key mining areas, including the Rubaya coltan mines, which are estimated to produce 15% of the world's coltan - a mineral critical for electronic devices. Control over such resources provides these groups with substantial revenue streams, enabling them to fund their operations and entrench their power.  HORN REVIEW+2Global Initiative+2The Africa Report+2 Regional Dynamics: Rwanda's Involvement Rwanda's role in the DRC's mineral conflicts is a subject of intense scrutiny. While Kigali denies direct involvement, reports suggest that Rwandan forces have supported M23 rebels in their campaigns. The minerals extracted from rebel-held territories are often smuggled across the border into Rwanda, where they enter global supply chains. This illicit trade not only undermines the DRC's sovereignty but also implicates international markets in the perpetuation of conflict.  Global Implications: The Demand for Conflict Minerals The global demand for minerals like coltan and cobalt has surged with the proliferation of smartphones, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies. This demand has inadvertently fueled conflicts in mineral-rich regions like the DRC. Despite international efforts to establish conflict-free supply chains, enforcement remains challenging. Major corporations have faced criticism for sourcing minerals linked to human rights abuses and environmental degradation.  Financial Times Human Cost: Communities Caught in the Crossfire The human toll of the mineral-fueled conflicts is staggering. Millions have been displaced, and countless lives have been lost. In areas under rebel control, civilians often face extortion, forced labor, and violence. Artisanal miners, including children, work in hazardous conditions for meager wages, extracting minerals that fuel the global economy. The lack of infrastructure and basic services further exacerbates the suffering of these communities.  AP News International Responses: Seeking Sustainable Solutions Efforts to address the DRC's mineral conflicts have included international sanctions, peacekeeping missions, and initiatives to promote transparency in mineral sourcing. Recently, the United States has been involved in negotiations with the DRC to secure access to critical minerals in exchange for infrastructure investments and support in resolving conflicts. However, such agreements must be approached with caution to ensure they do not perpetuate existing power imbalances or overlook the needs of local communities.  Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle The DRC's mineral wealth has the potential to drive economic growth and development. However, without comprehensive reforms that address governance, corruption, and the rule of law, the cycle of conflict is likely to continue. International stakeholders must prioritize ethical sourcing, support capacity-building initiatives, and engage with local communities to ensure that the benefits of mineral wealth are equitably distributed. Only through such concerted efforts can the DRC transform its mineral riches from a source of conflict into a foundation for peace and prosperity.